大都僧侣巴·扫马出使西欧受挫 蒙古十字军反马穆鲁克同盟破局

大都僧侣巴·扫马出使西欧受挫 蒙古十字军反马穆鲁克同盟破局 西欧君主内斗叠加伊儿汗国北疆受制导致联合十字军击溃马穆鲁克的计划流产，失去政权庇护的东方景教随之在欧亚腹地走向不可逆的衰亡。 内容首先颠覆基督教作为“西方宗教”的固有印象，详述了早期东方教会的发展、基督神人二性的神学争议以及景教在唐代中国的深度本土化。随后，节目聚焦元代北京景教僧侣拉班·巴·扫马与马可斯西行朝圣的传奇经历，剖析了蒙古帝国地缘博弈背景下巴·扫马出使西欧宫廷的外交内幕。最后，讨论转向哲学与神学维度，系统阐释了莱布尼茨关于“最好可能世界”与解决世间苦难的神义论逻辑，并延伸探讨了克鲁泡特金互助论对五四新文化运动的深远思想激荡。 基督教在地理与历史上起源于西亚，早期向东传播的景教（聂斯脱里派）版图曾超越罗马天主教会，并深度融入唐宋元时期的中国社会与道教经书。 (0:00) 元代北京景教僧侣拉班·巴·扫马曾展开跨欧亚的反向朝圣，并作为伊儿汗国特使出使西欧，游说英王、法王及罗马教廷组建夹击马穆鲁克王朝的军事同盟。 (21:09) 莱布尼茨通过“可能世界”假说与充足理由律构建神义论，在斯宾诺莎的必然主义与笛卡尔的唯意志论之间，论证了世界之恶并不否定上帝的全知、全善与全能。 (30:57) 克鲁泡特金以《互助论》为代表的无政府主义思想，在五四运动及新文化运动初期对中国知识界产生了先锋性影响，呼应了摆脱强权的大同乌托邦追求。 (41:34)

本期节目通过梁文道的阐述，跨越东西方文明与思想史脉络，重新审视基督教起源与早期东方教会的流变，并连带探讨了神学辩题、互助主义政治哲学、日本文学心理结构以及文艺复兴时期的现实政治术。 东方起源与景教的欧亚传播 (0:00) 节目指出，将基督教视为纯粹“西方宗教”是现代人常见的地理与历史误区。基督教起源于西亚以色列，最早的传播路径向南进入非洲埃塞俄比亚，向东北促成亚美尼亚成为史上首个基督教国度，向东则演化出叙利亚正教会。随着君士坦丁堡牧首聂斯脱里主张神人二性并存但互不混合的“二性论”被正统教会定为异端，其追随者在东方建立以巴格达为枢纽的东方亚述教会，并沿丝绸之路传入中国唐朝，史称“景教”。 唐代景教不仅在长安立足，更在东南沿海留下遗存，其信徒如波斯裔将领伊斯曾协助郭子仪平定安史之乱，学者李珣则融入科举体系。后世甚至在吕祖道教的《度人救劫经》中，发现了以汉字音译叙利亚语保存的基督赞歌，显现出外来宗教在本土受压制时的隐秘融合痕迹。 蒙元时期的朝圣与地缘外交 (10:24) 元代来自大都（北京）与晋蒙边界的汪古部景教僧人拉班·巴·扫马与拉班·马可斯立志西行耶路撒冷朝圣。尽管当时欧亚大陆处于“蒙古和平”之下，但各大汗国内部权力割裂，师徒二人凭借苦行僧身份化解中亚察合台汗国海都汗的猜忌，抵达伊儿汗国后，因熟悉蒙古体制与语言而迅速受重用，马可斯升任东方教会牧首雅巴拉哈三世。 在埃及马木路克骑兵打破蒙古不败神话后，身处前线的伊儿汗国急于联络欧洲天主教君主开辟两线夹击，通晓多种语言的巴·扫马遂以伊朗君主全权特使身份出使西欧。他在罗马直面枢机主教团关于基督论的神学盘问，并先后觐见法王腓力四世、英王爱德华一世及教宗尼古拉四世。然而，因金帐汗国牵制伊儿汗国兵力以及欧洲列国内部纷争，十字军同盟最终落空；随着伊儿汗国逐步伊斯兰化，东方亚述教会也在近东逐渐边缘化与式微。 莱布尼茨的神义论与恶的分类 (28:26) 在近代理性主义与宗教哲学的交界处，莱布尼茨通过全知、善意与全能三大神圣属性，论证上帝在一切可能的假想世界中创造了“最好的可能世界”。这一立场反对斯宾诺莎的绝对决定论（该理论导致上帝需对恶的必然性负责），同时也驳斥了笛卡尔式的唯意志论，认为意志本质上包含目的性选择，上帝的创造受到理性充分理由律的引导，以极简的法则承载最大尺度的宇宙多样性。 面对现实痛苦与恶的质疑，莱布尼茨将恶划分为三层：受造物有限性所必然伴随的“形而上学的恶”、生命衰老疾病等“物理之恶”，以及源自认知盲点与失误的“道德之恶”（罪恶）。这种对存在缺陷的理性追问，在梁文道看来构成了现代西方理性主义探求世界机理的重要思想引擎。 克鲁泡特金互助论与现代国家反思 (41:34) 节目随后切入对无政府主义思想的梳理，指出其自老庄哲学、芝诺、梭罗至蒲鲁东一脉相承，并曾在中国五四运动时期产生极其广泛的刊物传播与青年号召力。针对社会达尔文主义片面宣扬“弱肉强食”，俄国思想家克鲁泡特金在《互助论》中援引猛禽协同捕食以及早期人类公社经验，力证互助合作是物种演化的关键生物学本能。 克鲁泡特金批判现代民族国家垄断了所有社会自治职能，将邻里照应等有机联系转变为冰冷的纳税与科层管控，催生出原子化的狭隘个人主义。梁文道结合传统香港唐楼夜不闭户的邻里记忆，指出当代人遇到公共失序时本能依赖国家权力介入，恰恰印证了草根自组织自治传统的退化。 金阁寺的美学困境与马基雅维利政治术 (64:30) 在文学与现实权力层面，讨论涉及了三岛由纪夫《金阁寺》中沟口的人格投射：残缺自卑的沟口通过狂妄傲慢构筑防御机制，并依托鹤川的阳光翻译与柏木的恶意报复维持生存，最终在金阁寺木质脆弱却又被视作永恒的悖论中走向毁灭。这一对脆弱与绝对的执念构成了战后日本文学独特的心理剖析样本。 在政治理论方面，节目剖析了马基雅维利写作《君主论》的现实境遇。在经历博尔吉亚雷厉风行、腰斩副手以平民愤的现实震慑，以及美第奇家族复辟导致自身遭刑求流放后，马基雅维利撰写了这部“君王之鉴”，专论依靠运气（Fortuna）与外力夺权的新兴君主。他借用古罗马对命运女神的拟人化构想，主张统治者必须具备刚毅决断的政治魄力（virtù）顺应时势，以此为自身重返佛罗伦萨政坛铺路。 本讲座跨越神学争端、丝路外交、近代玄学、互助进化论与文艺复兴政治学，核心揭示了历史演进中观念构建与现实生存之间的复杂互动，但对不同思想板块之间的深层理论衔接未作进一步整合。

[10:24] 拉班·马可斯: 既然我们二人对真道如此渴慕，何不一同西行，前往耶路撒冷圣地朝圣？

[0:00] In fact, Christian thought or the [0:02] Christian faith primarily spread [0:04] throughout the Asian region. Whether we [0:06] are Chinese or Westerners today, we all [0:08] have a fundamental misconception about [0:11] Christianity. What is that mistake? We [0:14] all say this is a Western religion, or [0:16] a European religion, but please do not [0:18] be mistaken; in terms of geography, it [0:21] should actually be considered an [0:23] Eastern religion. Why? Who was Jesus? [0:26] Where did the Jewish people originally [0:29] live and gather? In Israel, which is in [0:31] the East, in Asia. Therefore, when his [0:34] earliest disciples spread the faith, [0:36] they did not go to Europe first, but [0:39] rather to places closest to Israel. For [0:41] instance, one group went to Africa, [0:44] giving rise to the Ethiopian Orthodox [0:46] Church, which has existed since almost [0:49] the time of Jesus and which many may [0:51] have never heard of. Another branch [0:53] went to Armenia and formed the Armenian [0:56] Apostolic Church. Armenia was the first [0:58] country in the world to adopt [1:00] Christianity as its state religion, [1:02] back when Europe was still persecuting [1:04] Christians. Right, another group went [1:07] to Iraq, or the vicinity of today's [1:09] Iraq, and near there, they established [1:12] the Syriac Orthodox Church alongside [1:14] those in Syria. So, the foundation of [1:17] the entire early Christian church was [1:19] actually in Asia, or at least in the [1:21] West Asia region, and within it, they [1:24] had very serious theological disputes. [1:26] The main point of contention revolved [1:29] around Christology, which is a [1:30] theological term. What exactly is meant [1:33] by Christology? The question is very [1:36] simple: was Jesus Christ a human or a [1:39] god? The common view is that he is the [1:41] Son of God, yet incarnated as a man, [1:43] possessing human nature, thus he is [1:45] called the Son of Man. So, is he a [1:47] human or a god? At the time, some were [1:50] branded as heretics for claiming he was [1:52] not a god at all, but merely a man. For [1:54] example, today's Muslims believe that [1:57] Jesus was just a man, though a great [1:59] prophet. Okay, since they were cast out [2:01] as heretics, the remaining faction who [2:04] believed he was God had to face a [2:06] question: did he possess only divinity [2:08] and no humanity? This group was also [2:11] expelled as heretical, so the remaining [2:13] people had to debate how the same [2:16] person could be both God and man. Did [2:18] he have more divinity or more humanity? [2:22] And how could divinity and humanity [2:25] coexist in one person? Because of this, [2:27] a bishop named Nestorius was excluded [2:30] at the time for advocating what is [2:32] known as the "two-nature" doctrine. [2:34] What does that mean? As for Jesus, he [2:37] is both God and man, and these two [2:39] natures exist within the same person, [2:42] yet they cannot intermingle. It's like [2:44] taking a cup of water and pouring some [2:47] oil into it; the oil immediately floats [2:49] to the surface and cannot mix with the [2:51] water. Jesus is essentially like that: [2:53] a cup containing both water and oil, [2:56] with the oil and water representing [2:58] divinity and humanity, respectively. [3:00] This perspective is considered heresy [3:03] by today’s Roman Catholic Church, [3:05] Protestantism, and Greek Orthodoxy, and [3:08] it is rejected by them. However, his [3:11] followers remained active, and the [3:14] Syrian Church I mentioned earlier [3:16] accepted his teachings and began to [3:18] spread them. You should note that this [3:21] group is what we Chinese call "Jingjiao [3:24] "(Nestorianism). Their reach was far [3:27] greater than that of Catholicism in [3:29] Europe. Why? Because their headquarters [3:32] , or their version of the Vatican, was [3:34] in what is now Baghdad, and from there, [3:36] they traveled all the way to the [3:38] farthest east. They first passed [3:40] through all of Central Asia, where many [3:42] followed them, reached northern and [3:44] even southern cities in modern-day [3:46] India, and finally arrived in China. [3:48] Once in China, they didn't just spread [3:50] in Chang'an; they reached as far as [3:52] Fujian and Zhejiang, where one can [3:54] still see traces of their former [3:56] Nestorian temples. Among these [3:58] Nestorians, some even achieved great [3:59] success and made significant [4:01] contributions in Chinese history. For [4:02] example, we know of the An Lushan [4:04] Rebellion in the Tang Dynasty; the [4:06] famous general who was the backbone of [4:08] putting it down was, of course, Guo [4:10] Ziyi. Guo Ziyi had a deputy who fought [4:12] everywhere alongside him named Yisi, [4:15] and this Yisi was a famous prominent [4:17] leader among the Nestorians. Also, [4:19] there was a famous person during the [4:22] Tang Dynasty named Li Xun, who was also [4:24] a Nestorian. We cannot tell his true [4:27] identity from his name, but you're [4:29] right—this Li Xun was a Persian. He [4:32] passed the imperial examinations. This [4:35] is what the Tang Dynasty was like; [4:37] there were many foreigners here who [4:39] perhaps adopted Chinese names. Looking [4:41] at Li Xun, he had the appearance of an [4:44] Iranian. Who else was there? Let me [4:46] give you another example—though this [4:48] one has nothing to do with Nestorianism [4:50] —have you heard of a person named Abe [4:53] no Nakamaro? He had a Chinese name, [4:55] Chao. Chao Heng was a Japanese student [4:58] sent to study in China, and he ended up [5:00] staying there, becoming good friends [5:02] with Wang Wei and Li Bai. At one point, [5:04] Li Bai thought he had died in a [5:06] shipwreck and even wrote a very famous [5:08] poem in his memory. This person was not [5:11] only a famous poet whose poems we still [5:13] read today, but later in the Tang [5:15] Dynasty, during the reign of Emperor [5:17] Suzong, he attained the highest [5:19] official rank of Regional Military [5:21] Governor of Annam. Where is that place? [5:24] It is today's Henan; can you imagine [5:26] that the provincial governor of today's [5:28] Henan back in the Tang Dynasty was a [5:30] Japanese person? This was China back [5:32] then, the Tang Dynasty. Anyway, I [5:35] digress. Let's return to the Church of [5:37] the East. Since it has become such a [5:40] tiny minority today—for example, the [5:42] Assyrian Church of the East still [5:44] exists, but it is a very small sect, [5:46] and its headquarters are surprisingly [5:48] in Chicago, USA. Therefore, even [5:50] Westerners don't pay much attention to [5:52] them, let alone us Chinese. It is no [5:55] wonder you haven't heard the story of [5:57] these two Nestorians, and it is also [5:59] not surprising that you wouldn't be [6:02] interested if you heard it, as the book [6:04] is full of their internal religious [6:06] affairs. So, let's get back to the [6:09] point. These two people, whom we would [6:13] call ethnic minorities in China today, [6:15] followers of a minority religion that [6:17] has already vanished from China, set [6:20] out for the West, reached Baghdad, and [6:22] even Europe. What exactly were they [6:26] going there to do? Their book records [6:30] part of their journey, but indeed, [6:32] unlike "The Travels of Marco Polo," it [6:35] unfortunately lacks many descriptions [6:38] of local customs and traditions. The [6:43] main reason is that the elder teacher [6:45] among them, Rabban Sauma...Uh, first of [6:48] all, I forgot to explain this name. " [6:51] Rabban" is actually Syriac, meaning " [6:54] teacher." Nestorians back then, [6:56] including those in China, used Ancient [6:59] Syriac as their official language, so [7:01] there were many traces of Syriac in [7:04] China in the past. Having said that, [7:06] let me steer back again; everyone knows [7:09] Lu Dongbin. For Lu Dongbin, if you are [7:12] a follower of the Patriarch Lu in [7:14] Taoism, there is a major collection of [7:16] texts called the "Complete Works of [7:19] Patriarch Lu." In the "Complete Works [7:21] of Patriarch Lu," there is a very [7:23] famous incantation called the "Sutra of [7:25] Salvation and Righteousness." In this [7:27] incantation, there is a strange passage [7:29] of text that is clearly a translation [7:31] from a foreign language into Chinese [7:33] characters; ancient Chinese people used [7:36] to call this "Sanskrit." This is [7:38] because, in ancient China, whenever [7:39] they encountered foreign languages [7:40] translated into Chinese that they [7:42] couldn't understand, they would simply [7:44] label it as "Sanskrit." As it turns out [7:45] , scholars later tried to decipher it [7:47] back into Sanskrit, but it made no [7:49] sense at all and couldn't be decoded. [7:51] Later, everyone discovered that it [7:53] could actually be decoded using Syriac. [7:56] Once decoded, they found that this [7:58] passage, which Taoist practitioners in [8:00] China still recite to this day, do you [8:03] know what kind of mantra it is? It [8:06] turns out to be a scripture in which [8:08] the Nestorians praised Jesus Christ and [8:11] the Savior. This text was translated [8:13] into Chinese and preserved intact [8:16] within the Lüzu faith. No wonder some [8:19] say the Lüzu faith conceals many [8:21] Nestorians who were oppressed at the [8:23] time and forced to hide their [8:25] identities. So, Rabban Bar Sauma was [8:28] one such Nestorian. He took his young [8:31] disciple, Rabban Markos; the master and [8:34] the disciple both became monks, both [8:36] became ascetics, and traveled to those [8:39] places. Originally, along the way, [8:41] Rabban Bar Sauma also recorded many of [8:43] his own life experiences and [8:45] observations, but they were written in [8:47] Persian, and that manuscript has been [8:49] lost. Later, this original manuscript [8:51] was transcribed into Syriac by another [8:54] companion of his who was also a [8:56] Nestorian monk, who deleted everything [8:58] unrelated to their Nestorian faith. [9:00] This is the manuscript we see today, [9:03] which could be called an abridged [9:05] version. But it also includes the life [9:08] of his disciple, Rabban Markos, after [9:10] Rabban Bar Sauma's death, covering his [9:12] time as the global leader of the [9:14] Nestorians and the Catholicos in [9:16] Baghdad, so it remains a very [9:18] interesting book. But now, the first [9:21] question we need to resolve is: why did [9:23] they want to go to the West? Why travel [9:26] so far when they could have practiced [9:28] perfectly well in Beijing? The passage [9:30] we just read describes Rabban Bar Sauma [9:33] arriving in Rome, wanting to meet the [9:35] Pope of the Roman Catholic Church at [9:37] the time. However, it just so happened [9:40] that the previous Pope had passed away, [9:43] and the next one hadn't been elected [9:45] yet. So, the core figures of the Roman [9:50] Curia—the Vatican—meaning the [9:52] Cardinals, those high-ranking figures [9:54] qualified to elect or be elected Pope, [9:57] gathered there and began chatting with [10:00] this traveler from afar. So, what would [10:03] they talk about? Besides asking, "It's [10:05] strange that you come from as far as [10:07] China; how could there be Christians [10:09] there?" Beyond asking about these facts [10:12] , they then began to discuss some of [10:14] the very complex issues regarding [10:16] Christology that we talked about in the [10:18] last segment. Because, as we know, this [10:20] issue is the main point of contention [10:22] between the Eastern Church, the Roman [10:24] Catholic Church, and later, the [10:25] Protestant churches. To those of us who [10:28] aren't religious, such debates might [10:30] seem quite tedious. But even for [10:35] non-believers, it’s worth noting that [10:37] these complex theological discussions [10:40] often challenged conventional ways of [10:42] thinking, actually fostering the [10:44] development of much later philosophy [10:47] from another perspective. However, this [10:51] is not what we are here to discuss [10:53] today. What we want to talk about is [10:56] quite simple: as we mentioned before, [10:59] Rabban Bar Sauma and his disciple [11:01] Rabban Markos. One was from Beijing and [11:04] the other from Inner Mongolia, both [11:07] near Beijing, and both were from the [11:09] Ongud tribe. As I just mentioned, most [11:12] of the Ongud people had converted to [11:14] Nestorian Christianity, and perhaps one [11:16] other person, maybe a Uyghur, had also [11:19] converted. How did they end up [11:21] traveling so far, and why, inexplicably [11:23] , did one of them become a Nestorian [11:26] envoy to Europe? What exactly is going [11:29] on here? Let’s start from the very [11:31] beginning. Both of them were originally [11:34] devout ascetics. Rabban Bar Sauma, in [11:37] particular, had a reputation that [11:39] spread far and wide, so even someone as [11:41] far away as the border of Inner [11:43] Mongolia and Shanxi, like Rabban Markos [11:46] , spared no effort to travel to Beijing [11:49] to follow this master, as it was said [11:51] his spiritual practice was very [11:53] profound and they wanted to learn from [11:56] him. Then, this disciple urged his [11:58] master, "Look, since we are both so [12:00] devoted to the Way, why don't we head [12:03] west together and make a pilgrimage to [12:05] Jerusalem?" This brings us to the [12:07] people who traveled the ancient Silk [12:09] Road. Apart from merchants, there were [12:11] mainly two types of people. As we've [12:13] discussed before, travel was a very [12:15] difficult undertaking back then. Most [12:17] ordinary people would not venture [12:19] further than 5 kilometers from their [12:21] own homes. There are only three types [12:24] of people capable of traveling such [12:26] long distances. One is merchants, but [12:29] merchants generally don't record what [12:31] they experience, so we can't learn much [12:34] about the ancient Silk Road from them. [12:36] Another type is government officials [12:39] and envoys, like Zhang Qian or Wang [12:41] Xuance, who would submit reports upon [12:44] their return. Among those from the [12:46] private sector, however, one group is [12:49] particularly diligent and courageous: [12:51] religious figures. They either go to [12:54] India to seek scriptures like Monk [12:56] Xuanzang, or they go on pilgrimages, [12:58] just like the two Nestorian Christians [13:01] we see today. Well, they have set off [13:03] on their pilgrimage. You know, [13:05] traveling this pilgrimage route back [13:07] then was actually not easy at all. [13:09] First, as we mentioned in our previous [13:11] season, there was the concept of the " [13:13] Pax Mongolica" at that time. "Pax [13:16] Mongolica" refers to the period after [13:18] Genghis Khan's western campaigns, which [13:20] opened up the entire Eurasian continent [13:22] . For this entire region, all [13:24] transportation and trade enjoyed a [13:26] brief period of peace because it was [13:28] all under Mongol rule. With a single [13:30] order from the Mongols, everyone could [13:32] travel safely across this vast area, [13:35] without fear of many issues or the [13:37] difficulties of crossing borders. Yet, [13:40] even so, there were still periods of [13:42] interruption in between. Why is that? [13:45] This involves the nature of the Mongol [13:48] state. We know that the Mongol Empire [13:50] expanded at an incredible speed to [13:52] become one of the largest empires in [13:55] history. However, it expanded too [13:57] quickly, and with so few Mongols [13:59] controlling such a vast territory, it [14:02] inevitably led to many derivative [14:04] problems. One of these problems was the [14:07] inability to maintain a truly [14:09] centralized government over such a vast [14:11] land, so from the time of Genghis Khan, [14:14] there were four major khanates. For [14:16] example, there is the part under our [14:19] Yuan Dynasty; this is one region. What [14:21] else is there? There is the Golden [14:24] Horde controlling the Russian region, [14:26] the Ilkhanate centering on Iran and [14:28] Iraq, and in the central region, there [14:31] are the Ogedei Khanate and the Chagatai [14:34] Khanate. This system of khanates [14:36] actually highlights another issue with [14:38] the Mongols from a different [14:39] perspective. What is that issue? It is [14:42] that the succession of the Great Khan [14:44] did not follow the Chinese tradition [14:45] where the eldest son or another son [14:47] naturally inherits the throne. How did [14:49] they inherit it? After a Great Khan [14:52] died, the next one had to be [14:54] collectively elected by the nobles, [14:56] which inevitably sowed many seeds of [14:58] uncertainty. Moreover, the Mongol [15:03] tribal state was only unified for the [15:06] first time under Genghis Khan, so [15:08] people retained a primitive sense of "I [15:10] follow Genghis Khan and am loyal to him [15:13] ," which did not automatically extend [15:15] to his successor or the institution of [15:17] the Khanate itself. This loyalty was [15:26] directed at a tribal leader personally, [15:28] rather than at a formal national head [15:31] of state, which meant internal strife [15:33] was almost inevitable; for example, [15:35] when Kublai Khan ascended to the [15:37] position. However, the problem was that [15:42] some of the other Khanates did not [15:44] recognize him. The Golden Horde, far [15:46] away in Russia, did not acknowledge [15:48] Kublai as our Mongol Great Khan, and in [15:51] Central Asia, the famous Kaidu of the [15:53] Chagatai Khanate also refused to [15:55] recognize his authority. Now, the [15:57] problem arises: when the master and [15:59] apprentice Rabban Bar Sauma left the [16:01] territory controlled by the Yuan [16:02] Dynasty to enter the Chagatai Khanate [16:05] in Central Asia, trouble was bound to [16:07] happen. Why? Although the book does not [16:10] mention it, most scholars believe that [16:13] this duo had met with Kublai, who gave [16:15] them a mission. What was this mission? [16:19] It was to go to Jerusalem and represent [16:21] Kublai on a pilgrimage. Since Kublai [16:23] was not a Christian, why would he want [16:25] to send representatives to Jerusalem to [16:27] go on a pilgrimage for him? We will [16:29] come back to this; it is a question of [16:31] the Mongols 'religious views. Back to [16:33] the master and apprentice: upon [16:35] arriving in the Chagatai Khanate, they [16:37] actually met Kaidu Khan. However, they [16:39] concealed the truth about the mission [16:42] Kublai had entrusted them with, telling [16:44] him instead that they were simply on a [16:46] pilgrimage. Kaidu Khan welcomed them [16:49] and sent them on their way peacefully. [16:51] Finally, they arrived in the Ilkhanate. [16:54] The Ilkhanate encompasses today's Iran [16:57] and Iraq, with Iran being its core [17:00] region. Once in the Ilkhanate, their [17:02] priority was to meet the Metropolitan [17:05] of the Church of the East, their [17:07] Patriarch, who was equivalent to the [17:09] Pope in the West. When their Patriarch [17:13] saw these two men, he was overjoyed and [17:16] said, "You have come, that is wonderful [17:18] !" Then he proceeded to entrust them [17:20] with an important task. So the two of [17:22] them said, "No, we have to go on a [17:24] pilgrimage to Jerusalem." But they had [17:26] no choice, they had to accept a task. [17:29] What kind of task? They appointed the [17:31] young disciple as a bishop for the [17:34] Chinese mission. And the master, Rabban [17:38] Sauma, became his inspector. We must [17:42] all have a question: these two guys [17:44] from Beijing—well, they weren't just [17:47] guys anymore, by then it was an uncle [17:49] and his young protégé. Arriving in [17:52] such a strange place where they might [17:55] not even speak the local language or [17:57] Syriac well, why was the Nestorian [17:59] headquarters so happy to see them, [18:02] giving them such a grand welcome and [18:04] such a major mission? Does this make [18:07] sense? Let me explain. This brings us [18:10] to the issue of Nestorianism. In a way, [18:13] it was like the Mongols, having [18:15] expanded over a very vast area, [18:17] reaching as far as our China, Zhejiang, [18:20] and Fujian. But Nestorian Christians [18:22] were a minority everywhere they went. [18:25] So, they always faced the problem of [18:28] how a minority religious faith could [18:30] survive and multiply within an [18:32] environment of another people and [18:34] another mainstream religion. Therefore, [18:37] they often had to carefully navigate [18:40] many complex political issues. That was [18:42] exactly the situation for the [18:44] Nestorians in the Ilkhanate. At that [18:46] time, in Persia—the former Persia, [18:49] later Iran—as well as Iraq, although [18:51] there had been Christians, Nestorian [18:53] believers, or those of the Church of [18:55] the East since ancient times......we [18:58] all know what the most mainstream [19:00] religion was there at that time. It was [19:03] Islam. In other words, the Nestorians [19:06] were a minority in an Islamized region. [19:09] So, they often had to find ways to [19:11] ensure they wouldn't be excluded or [19:13] wiped out, and thus they had to rely on [19:16] the Mongols, who were also outsiders [19:18] like them. They needed to build good [19:21] relations with the Mongols. Now that [19:23] these Mongols had arrived, who would [19:25] you use to deal with them? It just so [19:28] happened that two people arrived [19:30] straight from the Mongol heartland, [19:32] from the Yuan Dynasty, and they could [19:35] speak Mongolian. Wouldn't it be perfect [19:37] to let them represent the Nestorians [19:39] and deal with the Mongol Khans, the [19:42] Khans of the Ilkhanate? Secondly, what [19:44] was even more important? He was [19:46] entrusted with a special mission. Do [19:48] you remember what I said earlier? At [19:50] that time, everyone acknowledged the [19:52] Great Khan of all the Mongols. This [19:54] included the Ilkhanate, which was [19:57] located in Iran and Iraq. The Yuan [19:59] Dynasty was over here in China, with a [20:01] vast distance between them, so the two [20:03] supported each other and formed an [20:05] alliance. At this time, the Ilkhanate [20:07] was facing the Golden Horde to the [20:09] north, which was hostile, frequently [20:12] leading to border conflicts. He thought [20:14] , "Oh, my older brother Kublai has sent [20:16] people here; this must be a form of [20:18] support for me, right?" Since he sent [20:21] these people, we are brothers after all [20:23] , aren't we? I treat him well, he [20:25] treats me well, so I must hold the [20:27] people he sent in high regard. It was [20:30] with this mindset that he allowed these [20:33] two individuals to take on this [20:35] position. This is also why later, after [20:39] this Nestorian patriarch died, the [20:42] others would elect a Muslim, so what [20:45] was he to do? On one hand, he had to [20:48] carefully maintain a religious balance, [20:51] as this had always been the Mongol way. [20:53] The Mongols' original religion was [20:55] Shamanism, but after arriving anywhere, [20:58] they would find ways to integrate into [21:00] the local society, either by following [21:02] local beliefs or doing something else. [21:05] That is, through pluralism, accepting [21:07] all religions while keeping a balance [21:09] and remaining neutral, thus showing [21:11] respect for every faith. This is why [21:13] Kublai, on one hand, protected the [21:16] Nestorians and sent them as his [21:18] representatives to pay respects in [21:20] Jerusalem, while simultaneously [21:22] promoting Tibetan Buddhism in China to [21:24] win over the locals. Moving on, we know [21:27] the Yuan Dynasty also aimed for [21:29] complete Sinicization by adopting [21:30] Confucian ideology; the Mongols used [21:33] this approach. Similarly, the Ilkhanate [21:35] faced the same issue of whether it [21:37] should completely embrace Islam. [21:39] However, the problem was they didn't [21:41] dare to fully "Islamize," so they had [21:43] to find a way to rely on the Nestorians [21:45] . At this time, he highly valued Rabban [21:49] Bar Sauma, seeing him as a learned [21:51] Nestorian scholar, and Rabban Bar Sauma [21:54] was multilingual, quickly mastering [21:57] Persian, Syriac, and Mongolian. Then he [22:01] gave him a very strange task: to go on [22:04] a diplomatic mission to Europe, but for [22:07] what purpose? To persuade them to join [22:10] forces with him to attack the Mamluk [22:13] Sultanate, which occupied the Palestine [22:15] region and Egypt at the time, and to [22:18] urge them to send troops; what was this [22:20] all about? Before I explain what was [22:23] going on, I must mention another, more [22:25] important reason he valued Rabban Bar [22:27] Sauma: even though he belonged to the [22:29] Nestorian Church of the East, which [22:31] differed from the Roman Catholic Church [22:33] of Europe at the time, they at least [22:35] shared a common language, right? So, if [22:38] I send someone who shares your [22:40] Christian faith, someone who speaks [22:42] many languages, is very intelligent and [22:45] scholarly, very capable, and a seasoned [22:47] traveler who fears no distance, to go [22:49] to Europe to negotiate peace and form [22:52] an alliance, wouldn't that be an ideal [22:54] envoy? And so, this Beijinger suddenly [22:57] became the national representative of [23:00] the king of Iran at the time, sent to [23:02] Europe to meet with those Europeans. [23:05] Alright, let's get back to the main [23:07] point. He was going to Europe. Why did [23:10] they want to form this alliance? This [23:13] brings us to the Ilkhanate in that [23:15] region at the time, which had a very [23:18] powerful enemy: the Mamluk Sultanate. [23:20] Many Chinese people might have heard [23:23] the name "Mamluk," and why is that? [23:25] Because we know that after Genghis Khan [23:28] launched the Mongol westward expansion, [23:30] the Mongol cavalry gained an invincible [23:32] reputation. Wherever they went, there [23:34] was often no need to even fight; many [23:37] cities would eventually surrender [23:39] voluntarily because they knew they [23:41] couldn't win, as they had never been [23:43] defeated before. So, very rarely across [23:45] the entire Eurasian continent, it was [23:47] finally in the region of modern-day [23:49] northern Egypt and Israel—the [23:51] Palestinian region—that they were [23:53] defeated for the first time. At that [23:57] time, Hulagu, who was commanding that [23:59] part of the army, had to hurry back to [24:01] Mongolia for the election of the new [24:03] Great Khan, leaving behind a general to [24:06] deal with the Mamluks. The Mamluks who [24:09] held power in northern Egypt at this [24:11] time were no ordinary people; they were [24:14] Turkic. Originally a group of [24:16] mercenaries, they were naturally brave [24:18] and skilled in battle, just imagine. [24:20] And they were blood-related and closely [24:23] linked to the Ottomans who would later [24:25] establish the Ottoman Empire. These [24:28] people staged a coup in Egypt at the [24:30] time, seizing power as a mercenary [24:32] group. They were originally a very [24:35] formidable force of heavy cavalry, and [24:37] then they encountered the Mongol light [24:39] cavalry. Because the Mongols had won [24:42] their battles too easily, they [24:44] underestimated the enemy and finally, [24:46] in this battle, they suffered their [24:48] first crushing defeat in history. [24:50] Because of this, the Mongol plan to [24:53] expand into Africa was halted right [24:55] there. The Ilkhanate was on the front [24:59] line facing the Mamluks, and they [25:01] really wanted to conquer Jerusalem, [25:04] Israel, and those areas, but those [25:06] places were also home to the remnants [25:08] of city-states and Crusader states left [25:10] over from the Crusades. European [25:14] Catholics were also fixated on fighting [25:17] the Muslims, aiming to take back the [25:19] Holy Land from the Mamluk Sultanate. [25:22] The Ilkhanate ruler’s logical thought [25:24] was, "Why not just form an alliance [25:27] with Europe?" So he sent someone, [25:29] leading to a strange situation: the [25:31] Mongols, who originally wanted to [25:33] conquer Europe, were now trying to [25:36] reach out to European Catholics to team [25:38] up against the Muslims. Well, we know [25:40] the main population of the Ilkhanate [25:42] was Muslim, so he couldn't send a [25:44] Muslim representative, right? So he [25:46] chose Rabban Bar Sauma. Bar Sauma’s [25:49] journey is recorded in this book, which [25:51] documents quite a lot of complex [25:52] political and religious situations. [25:54] This is why many readers feel the book [25:56] isn't very interesting, as it lacks [25:58] descriptions of local customs and [25:59] traditions. But if you look at it from [26:01] this perspective, it actually lets us [26:03] see the international landscape of that [26:05] time. For instance, when he arrived in [26:07] Europe, he eventually met the newly [26:09] elected Pope, as well as the Kings of [26:11] France and England. Upon meeting him, [26:13] they all agreed, "Fine, let us unite [26:15] and send troops together to deal with [26:18] these Mamluks." However, none of these [26:20] plans actually succeeded. Why? First of [26:23] all, even though these European [26:25] countries were all Catholic, you [26:27] shouldn't assume that if you appeal to [26:29] them in the name of a crusade to unite [26:31] all Christians against the Egyptian [26:33] Muslims, they would all respond. They [26:35] were caught up in their own internal [26:37] power struggles. Even if they weren't, [26:39] there was still a prerequisite. What [26:41] was that prerequisite? It was that the [26:43] Ilkhanate ruler promised: "I will send [26:45] my troops first. You wait. Once you see [26:48] my forces arrive, you must act quickly, [26:50] and we will strike from both sides to [26:52] wipe out the Egyptian Muslims." That [26:55] was the agreement, and in that sense, [26:57] Bar Sauma delivered the message. But [26:59] they didn't send troops. Why not? [27:02] Because the Golden Horde to the north [27:04] was preparing to invade them again. [27:06] That was it. The Mongol state at the [27:08] time was in such a predicament. On the [27:11] other hand, we see something else...... [27:13] which we see in the second half of this [27:16] biography, namely, Rabban Bar Sauma [27:18] after he became a senior bishop. The [27:20] second half of this young bishop's life [27:23] was actually quite miserable. He was [27:26] constantly mistreated, always on the [27:28] run, sometimes restored to power, and [27:31] sometimes thrown into prison. What was [27:34] really going on? Because several of the [27:38] new Ilkhanate rulers, in order to adapt [27:41] to the local society and gain local [27:43] support, were forced to convert to [27:45] Islam. If they were to convert to Islam [27:50] , then there would likely be no room [27:52] for Nestorian Christians. So, what did [27:55] this new patriarch, Yab-Alaha III— [27:58] originally Rabban Mark, a young man [28:00] from China who traveled from the border [28:03] of Shanxi and Inner Mongolia— [28:06] ultimately show us? It is the process [28:08] of the entire Church of the East slowly [28:11] declining, being continuously expelled, [28:14] and slaughtered within a world that was [28:16] gradually becoming Islamicized. A [28:18] desolate scene, perhaps much like the [28:21] deserts we see today, began to spread [28:24] across this land. In Leibniz's [28:27] reasoning, he inferred three qualities [28:30] that God must necessarily possess, or [28:32] conversely, he used these three [28:34] qualities to deduce why the world [28:37] exists as it does. First, God is [28:41] omniscient, meaning he knows all things [28:44] , which also means he knows what every [28:46] possible world would be like. Second, [28:52] he has a perfectly benevolent will; he [28:55] has the desire to select one world out [28:57] of all possible worlds to create, and [29:00] this world, as we mentioned before, is [29:03] the best of all possible worlds. Third, [29:07] he has the power; he is omnipotent, so [29:09] whatever world he conceives, he is able [29:12] to bring it into existence. Now, this [29:15] argument might sound quite dull and [29:17] meaningless to us, right? But let us [29:19] reconsider: what can be derived from [29:22] the very concept of God? One such thing [29:25] is the existence of God. Isn't this [29:27] claim very strange? Can you really [29:30] deduce the existence of God from the [29:32] mere concept of God? In the eyes of [29:34] many philosophers at the time, it was [29:36] considered possible. Leibniz also used [29:38] a similar argument in his Theodicy. [29:41] Strictly speaking, this argument was [29:43] perfected by Descartes, who was a [29:45] predecessor and contemporary [29:47] philosopher of his. What is this [29:49] argument like? Let us start with the [29:52] triangle. A triangle is a concept, [29:55] right? The concept of a triangle must [29:57] necessarily include certain attributes [30:00] of that concept; for example, the sum [30:02] of the three angles of a triangle must [30:05] be 180 degrees. We cannot say that the [30:07] concept of a triangle does not include [30:10] the attribute of the 180-degree sum, [30:13] otherwise, it would not be a triangle. [30:15] Similarly, we cannot find a perfect [30:18] triangle in our world; no matter how [30:20] you draw it, you cannot create a [30:23] standard triangle where the angles are [30:25] exactly 180 degrees. However, as a [30:28] concept, we still know that this [30:30] concept exists. Therefore, they argued [30:33] that the concept of God itself includes [30:36] omnipotence, omniscience, and [30:38] benevolence, and because we have such a [30:40] concept, we can likely say that God [30:43] must also exist. Why? Because Descartes [30:46] argued that existence is better than [30:48] non-existence, and existence is more [30:50] perfect than non-existence, since this [30:53] concept itself includes perfection, it [30:55] must also include its existence. That [30:57] sounds strange, doesn't it? But [30:59] actually, if you think about it [31:01] carefully, it is not as strange as you [31:03] might imagine. From this, we need to [31:05] return to Leibniz to discuss the next [31:07] issue. What is this issue? Do you [31:10] remember? Leibniz said that out of all [31:12] possible worlds, God chose to create [31:15] this one. This point is where Leibniz [31:17] differed significantly from many [31:19] philosophers and theologians of his [31:22] time, because many philosophers then, [31:24] like his contemporary Spinoza, believed [31:26] that there were no possible worlds; [31:29] this world is the only necessary one, [31:31] and whatever is possible must be [31:33] necessary. So, many people at that time [31:35] held this view, saying that it was [31:37] impossible for other possible worlds to [31:40] exist. Why did Leibniz have a [31:41] disagreement with them on this point? [31:44] It might still sound boring to us, but [31:46] if you keep listening, you will [31:48] discover some interesting philosophical [31:50] inferences. How so? If we say that this [31:53] world necessarily exists in this way, [31:56] that it is determined and there is no [31:58] possibility of contingency, then think [32:00] about it: it means that some people in [32:03] this world being bad is necessary, and [32:05] according to their view, those bad [32:08] people going to hell after death is [32:10] also necessary. Since this world was [32:13] created by God, it means God created a [32:16] world that inevitably contains villains [32:18] , and these villains are then destined [32:21] to go to hell. If we trace this logic [32:23] back, then what is morality? That would [32:26] mean God cannot be all-good. If He were [32:29] truly all-good, how could He possibly [32:31] create a world that necessarily [32:33] contains bad people, who then deserve [32:35] to go to hell? That is impossible, so [32:38] Leibniz opposed this view; he insisted [32:40] that it is possible for different [32:42] worlds to exist. Speaking of possible [32:45] worlds, we can even push this to the [32:47] extreme, because some philosophers at [32:49] the time said, "This world is full of [32:52] infinite possibilities, and God just [32:54] randomly created one. God didn't [32:56] deliberately pick or choose this world; [32:59] the creation of this world was [33:01] arbitrary and capricious." Why would [33:03] they say it was arbitrary and [33:05] capricious? It is because those [33:08] philosophers argued that if you say God [33:10] is free, He cannot be bound by any [33:13] concepts, including our concepts of [33:15] good and evil, or even the concepts of [33:18] morality. If God has freedom, then what [33:22] does that mean? Think about it. Leibniz [33:25] asked: does this mean God is free to do [33:28] evil? Is He free to create an imperfect [33:32] world, or free to allow an evil world [33:35] to exist, and so He created this one? [33:38] If that is the case, there is still a [33:40] problem. Where does this problem lie? [33:43] It remains a moral problem. That is to [33:46] say, if God created the world on a whim [33:48] —arbitrarily—and everything in this [33:50] world is random with no necessary [33:53] reason, then if you follow that logic, [33:55] you will discover something terrifying. [33:57] The terrifying thing is this: first, in [34:00] order to maintain God's freedom, you [34:03] sacrifice the existence of justice. So, [34:06] in this world, what is truly called " [34:08] good," and what is called an " [34:10] indifferent attitude"? They failed to [34:12] notice that absolute necessity, in [34:15] terms of God's external actions, is [34:18] absurd. Moral necessity, however, is of [34:21] value to Him. The necessity that [34:24] compels a wise person to do good is a [34:27] happy one, whereas an indifferent [34:29] attitude toward good and evil is a sign [34:32] of a lack of charity or wisdom. [34:34] Moreover, an indifferent attitude that [34:37] keeps the will in a state of perfect [34:40] balance is itself merely an illusion. [34:44] Although we don't have much time left, [34:46] I cannot help but continue to expand on [34:48] the topic we mentioned, because there [34:51] are some very interesting things in it. [34:53] For example, we just mentioned [34:55] philosophers like Descartes; they [34:57] argued that God created this world [35:00] somewhat capriciously, and that He is [35:02] not bound by anything, not even moral [35:05] concepts. This kind of argument is [35:07] called voluntarism in philosophy or [35:10] theology. It means that the reason God [35:13] created the world the way it is was [35:15] determined entirely by His will, [35:17] unaffected by concepts like whether [35:19] there should be evil in the world, or [35:22] whether it should be good or bad. [35:25] Leibniz refuted this type of thinking. [35:28] He didn't just point out that such a [35:31] world renders morality random; he went [35:33] deeper to discuss what exactly "will" [35:36] is. Leibniz was absolutely right. What [35:39] is the will? The will is a form of [35:42] choice. To have the will to do [35:44] something is to choose to do something, [35:46] and a choice is always a choice for [35:48] something, a choice toward a goal, or a [35:50] choice in a certain direction. If you [35:53] say today that God created this world [35:55] entirely at random and that He could [35:57] choose freely, then what is it that He [35:59] is actually choosing? If you claim it [36:02] is entirely random, it implies there is [36:05] no goal for the choice ahead. If there [36:08] is no goal, it cannot be called a [36:10] choice; and if it isn't a choice, one [36:13] cannot say God has a will. Therefore, [36:15] he conversely infers that God’s [36:18] creation of such a world has a purpose, [36:20] a goal, and stating it this way aligns [36:22] with the Principle of Sufficient Reason [36:25] we discussed earlier. His selection of [36:27] this world is based on a sufficient [36:29] reason. So, what kind of world did he [36:32] choose? We all remember that statement [36:35] by Leibniz, which we introduced in the [36:37] last two episodes and made everyone [36:40] laugh: this world is the best of all [36:42] possible worlds. How is this "best" [36:45] defined? How does he define it, and how [36:48] does he infer it? Due to time [36:50] constraints, we won't cover that here; [36:52] please read the books yourselves. His [36:54] definition is quite simple: this world [36:57] must necessarily be the one with the [36:59] richest phenomena. It is not only the [37:03] richest in phenomena, but these [37:05] abundant phenomena are also governed [37:08] and controlled by the most concise and [37:10] simple laws. In this way, we see the [37:15] world is a combination of two seemingly [37:18] contradictory elements: on one hand, [37:21] the world consists of everything we see [37:23] , various birds and beasts, and diverse [37:26] natural phenomena; yet on the other, [37:29] the natural laws that govern, create, [37:32] and enable them to function are the [37:34] simplest and most concise. This is like [37:39] an architect who wants to create the [37:42] richest space with the most minimal [37:44] materials, or like a geometer who [37:46] derives the most vast and subtle [37:48] inferences from the simplest rules. God [37:53] created such a world in this way, and [37:55] this world is a good one. Since this [37:58] world is so good, we return to the old [38:01] question: how then does evil arise? How [38:05] can God allow the existence of evil [38:07] people doing evil deeds in this world? [38:10] The reason is simple; let us first [38:12] define what we mean by evil. He [38:14] categorizes evil into three types: the [38:16] first is metaphysical evil, the second [38:18] is physical evil, and the third is what [38:20] we generally refer to as moral evil. [38:23] What do these three types of evil mean? [38:25] Allow me to introduce them to you now. [38:27] First, we said that there is order in [38:30] this world, that behind all things in [38:33] this world exists a perfect order, and [38:35] that perfect order is what regulates [38:38] and manages them through the most [38:40] concise natural laws. In this world, [38:44] everything must exist in coordination [38:46] with the overall order. Take the [38:49] simplest example, the weather. We might [38:52] say, "Oh, it keeps raining lately; this [38:54] world is truly imperfect. Wouldn't it [38:56] be better if it didn't rain?" Is that [38:58] possible? It’s impossible. Why? [39:02] Because whether it rains or not in a [39:04] certain place is linked to the entire [39:07] atmospheric cycle and various factors [39:09] within the global climate. In a perfect [39:13] world, the nature of climate makes it [39:16] impossible for any one place to never [39:19] rain or to always rain. So, we can say [39:24] that because the world must be orderly [39:27] and perfect as a whole, local [39:29] imperfections, such as frequent rain in [39:33] our area, must necessarily exist. This [39:36] kind of imperfection is what we call [39:39] metaphysical imperfection—defects [39:41] that are inherent and unavoidable in [39:44] things themselves. As we mentioned [39:46] before, the world created by God cannot [39:49] be as perfect as He is. In a world less [39:52] perfect than Him, for everything to fit [39:55] together, some things will inevitably [39:58] be unsatisfactory. For example, a [40:00] rabbit needs to jump very fast. But it [40:03] is impossible for a rabbit to always be [40:05] faster than a fox. Why? Because [40:08] sometimes, it must be food for the fox. [40:12] And the fox cannot be perfectly [40:14] immortal; it must die. Such a world has [40:19] a perfect cycle, a law of nature, which [40:22] is perfect on the whole. Since all [40:24] things have some metaphysical [40:26] imperfections, there are consequently [40:28] physical imperfections as well. For [40:31] instance, just as we mentioned that [40:33] foxes die, we humans must also die. We [40:35] humans are flawed; we face birth, aging [40:37] , sickness, and death, we have [40:39] intellectual limitations, and it is [40:41] impossible for us to know everything in [40:43] this world. This leads to the [40:44] conclusion that humans will commit [40:46] moral errors. Why? What is a moral [40:49] error? It is like this: so-called sin [40:52] or evil refers to the questions people [40:54] have, such as, "God, You are so great, [40:57] why is this world imperfect?""Why must [41:00] I die?""Why are there bad people in the [41:02] world?""Why do wicked people seem to [41:05] live well and enjoy wealth and status?" [41:07] "God, oh God, why is this?" This is a [41:10] question a rational person would ask. [41:13] He does not forbid people from asking [41:15] such questions; on the contrary, He [41:18] encourages people to ask them, and [41:20] within the limits of theology, to [41:22] further develop human reason. This is [41:25] the source of what we call the modern [41:27] Western rationalist trend of thought, [41:29] something that has existed within our [41:32] beliefs from the very beginning. A [41:34] representative figure, and the author [41:36] of the book I am introducing today, " [41:39] Mutual Aid," is Kropotkin. Another one [41:41] of his famous works is "The Conquest of [41:44] Bread." After talking for so long, you [41:47] probably have a vague impression of [41:49] anarchism. You might start to realize [41:52] that during that era, the May Fourth [41:54] period, anarchism seemed particularly [41:57] popular in intellectual and cultural [41:59] circles, didn't it? That's right. [42:04] Before the theories and organizational [42:07] structures of communism were fully [42:09] established and spread in China, [42:11] anarchism was the most widely [42:13] disseminated and influential radical [42:15] trend of the New Culture Movement. So, [42:20] what exactly is anarchism? For [42:23] anarchism, you might have also heard [42:26] another term: "Anarchism"( [42:27] transliterated as An-na-qi in Chinese). [42:30] "Anarchism" comes from the Chinese [42:32] translation of its English name. We [42:35] transliterate it as "An-na-qi," and the [42:38] origin of the word "Anarchism" is from [42:41] Greek. In ancient Greek, the meaning of [42:44] this word is "without government." So [42:46] you can see why it is called anarchism. [42:49] What does "without government" mean? [42:52] Why would some people think that having [42:54] no government is a good thing? Or [42:56] perhaps a goal that we should be [42:58] striving for? Actually, you could say [43:03] this has been a broad and vague [43:05] emotional inclination that humanity has [43:08] had since ancient times, regardless of [43:10] culture or geography, representing some [43:13] kind of social ideal. Some believe that [43:18] the "Great Unity" described by ancient [43:20] Chinese Confucianism, or the utopian [43:23] scenes described by Laozi and Zhuangzi [43:25] in Taoism—for instance, when Zhuangzi [43:28] said "he who steals a hook is executed, [43:30] while he who steals a state becomes a [43:33] feudal lord"—all contain underlying [43:35] anarchist ideas. In fact, back in [43:39] ancient Greece, some philosophers had [43:41] already put forward fragmented [43:43] anarchist claims, such as Zeno, one of [43:46] the founders of the famous Stoic school [43:48] . Later on, throughout the modern era, [43:54] many writers have attempted to propose [43:56] certain types of clear and explicit [43:58] anarchist assertions. For example, you [44:03] may have heard of the famous book " [44:05] Walden." Its author, Henry David [44:08] Thoreau, once said, "That government is [44:11] best which governs not at all." Besides [44:14] that, there are other famous thinkers. [44:18] For example, William Godwin, the father [44:21] of Mary Shelley—the author of [44:23] Frankenstein, which I introduced to you [44:25] in the last season—was one of the [44:27] earliest advocates of anarchism in [44:29] England. But after talking for so long, [44:33] does anarchism actually have any [44:35] concrete, systematic substance? Yes, it [44:39] does. This leads us to the 19th century [44:42] and an important Russian thinker, [44:45] Proudhon, who was the first in history [44:47] to explicitly call himself an anarchist [44:50] and turn it into a systematic theory. [44:53] However, we must be careful, as [44:56] anarchism has split into left and right [44:59] wings in modern times. Some you could [45:01] call right-wing anarchists. Their ideal [45:05] society is one where there is no longer [45:08] any government or anyone to collect [45:11] taxes. They believe everything human [45:17] beings need can actually be left to the [45:19] market, and that a government's [45:21] functions—even all of them, including [45:24] whether to have national defense or an [45:26] army—could be fully replaced by the [45:28] market and private enterprises. Yet, [45:34] the most mainstream anarchists are [45:36] probably still the left-wing anarchists [45:39] . For instance, the aforementioned [45:42] Proudhon and his later successor in [45:44] this theory, Bakunin, both believed [45:47] that the market itself is also wrong. [45:49] Because the market they are referring [45:52] to—the market in our current market [45:54] economy—is a capitalist path, and [45:56] capitalism is just as oppressive to [45:59] people as the government. The reason [46:03] these anarchists imagine a world [46:05] without government is that they dislike [46:07] being controlled; they want freedom and [46:10] liberation. They believe that being [46:15] controlled by a government or by an [46:18] employer or boss is not a good thing, [46:20] so both should be discarded, and both [46:23] should be overthrown. You might find it [46:27] strange: how could a world without a [46:30] government possibly function? For [46:32] example, in the street we just walked [46:34] down, you see some dirt and mess on the [46:36] ground, maybe some bicycles parked [46:38] randomly, and a group of people filming [46:40] by the roadside in the middle of the [46:42] night, occasionally making noise and [46:44] disturbing nearby residents, even [46:46] though there probably aren't many [46:48] residents behind these walls. When we [46:50] encounter this situation, the first [46:51] instinctive reaction for us Chinese [46:53] people might be to ask, "Why is there [46:55] no one here to manage this?" Why is [46:57] nobody taking care of these things? [46:59] When we say nobody is taking care of it [47:01] , we actually mean: why hasn't the [47:03] government noticed this, and why [47:05] shouldn't the government step in to [47:07] manage it? Now, think about it: how [47:09] would an anarchist face this kind of [47:12] situation? They would tell you it [47:14] doesn't need to be managed—it doesn't [47:16] need to be managed at all. But if no [47:18] one manages it, the streets will be [47:20] dirty, messy, and noisy, so what should [47:22] be done? What answer would they give [47:25] you? Their answer is that if the [47:28] neighbors and local residents of this [47:30] area have a strong spirit of mutual aid [47:32] and cooperate with each other—for [47:34] example, by forming a cooperative [47:36] neighborhood committee—then they [47:38] should be able to maintain the safety, [47:40] order, and cleanliness of their own [47:42] streets. They should be the ones [47:46] responsible for these matters because [47:48] this place belongs to their community, [47:50] and they can organize themselves well [47:53] without needing a top-down authority to [47:55] impose management upon them. Now, you [47:57] might ask: would they actually have the [48:00] willingness to do so? For instance, if [48:02] you have these people take turns, with [48:04] someone from every household coming out [48:06] to clean at a fixed time every day, [48:08] wouldn't that be quite annoying? It [48:10] doesn't matter, because anarchists— [48:12] especially the left-wing anarchists [48:15] since Kropotkin—would tell you that [48:17] one of the most fundamental human [48:19] spirits is mutual aid, helping one [48:21] another. With mutual aid, if we all [48:25] carry that spirit—for example, if I'm [48:27] walking on this road and see some trash [48:30] , I should take the initiative to pick [48:32] it up without needing to trouble others [48:35] . Even better, of course, is that none [48:37] of us should do things that bother [48:40] others, right? If each of us avoids [48:42] littering, we wouldn't make others ' [48:44] lives so miserable or their work so [48:46] exhausting, right? You might then [48:48] continue to press the question: is this [48:50] way of thinking too unrealistic? Are [48:53] people really that kind? Can people [48:56] truly be that self-aware and proactive [48:58] in helping others, organizing their own [49:00] neighborhoods, and maintaining [49:02] everything in their community? Is such [49:05] a thing even possible? Does it have any [49:09] foundation? The book I am introducing [49:11] to you today, "Mutual Aid," published [49:14] in England in 1902 and written in [49:16] English by Kropotkin, is meant to [49:19] answer exactly this question. In this [49:22] book, it tells us right from the start [49:24] what mutual aid is all about. for [49:27] instance, we help one another. If I see [49:29] someone in trouble on the road, I [49:31] immediately go over and ask, "How can I [49:33] help you?" This situation doesn't stem [49:35] from me loving this person, as they [49:38] might be a total stranger to me. It's [49:40] not just out of sympathy either—like [49:42] seeing an old lady fall on the ground. [49:44] What is it, then? It stems from a [49:47] deeper, shared sentiment common to the [49:50] entire human race, a sense of [49:52] solidarity that actually has a [49:54] biological basis. How could this have a [49:58] biological basis? In this 1902 book, he [50:02] began discussing the Darwinism that was [50:05] popular worldwide at the time. We know [50:09] Darwinism and evolutionary theory as " [50:12] survival of the fittest," and in China, [50:14] it was often followed by the phrase " [50:16] the weak are the prey of the strong." [50:19] It is a world where all living things [50:21] are in competition with one another. [50:25] According to this theory, all living [50:27] things, including humans, shouldn't [50:30] have any spirit of altruism or mutual [50:32] aid, right? However, Kropotkin argued [50:36] that we have all misread Darwin. He [50:39] said that what Darwin stated about [50:41] evolution is correct, and that his [50:44] points about every group and species [50:46] needing to survive and adapt to the [50:48] environment are also correct. However, [50:51] he believed we ignored a phenomenon [50:54] that Darwin actually mentioned: that [50:57] many animals quite curiously exhibit [51:00] altruistic behavior. So, the book [51:05] starts from this point, elaborating in [51:07] great detail to explain to everyone [51:09] that many animals actually live in [51:11] collective states, helping each other [51:14] and caring for one another within the [51:16] population to benefit the survival of [51:18] the group as a whole. The most obvious [51:23] examples are, of course, the ones you [51:26] and I are familiar with, such as ants [51:28] and bees. But beyond that, this book [51:30] also mentions a large amount of other [51:33] information that we aren't very [51:34] familiar with. For example, he cites a [51:38] naturalist who observed a type of eagle [51:41] , a white-headed eagle, on the steppes [51:43] of Eastern Russia. These eagles fly in [51:48] groups of ten to twenty, covering an [51:51] area of 25 square miles. If one sees [51:59] prey below, like a dead horse with [52:01] carrion to eat, it will emit a [52:03] high-pitched cry to summon all the [52:05] other eagles in the group covering [52:08] those 25 square miles to come down and [52:10] feast on the horse together, and they [52:13] even follow rules and etiquette. When [52:20] eating the meat of this horse, the [52:22] older eagles are allowed to eat first. [52:25] So you see, even eagles understand this [52:26] spirit of mutual aid and communal [52:28] living, and there is order between the [52:30] young and the old; how remarkable that [52:31] is! And how much more so for humans? [52:34] Humans are animals too, after all, so [52:36] he proceeded with his deduction. He [52:37] then mentioned that there was once an [52:39] era for humanity, which he called the [52:41] state of the "savage." What is meant by [52:44] "savage"? It is actually what we call [52:46] primitive people today, people of the [52:49] prehistoric era. Think about it; in [52:51] that age, there certainly were no [52:53] nations or governments, so how did they [52:56] survive? Their way of living was based [52:59] on tribes, clans founded on bloodlines. [53:02] Under such a structure, you would find [53:05] that these people engaged in collective [53:07] labor, such as hunting together or [53:10] gathering wild fruits together. Similar [53:13] phenomena were documented by many [53:15] anthropologists and historians even as [53:17] late as the turn of the 19th to the [53:19] 20th century, confirming that in [53:21] certain regions of the world, people [53:23] did indeed live this way. He asked, [53:26] don't you see that the state of these [53:28] people is a manifestation of the spirit [53:30] of mutual aid? Is it not a [53:32] manifestation of a spirit of [53:33] cooperation and selflessness? He then [53:36] talked about the Bushmen of South [53:38] Africa, for instance—though that name [53:40] is considered derogatory today, and we [53:42] know they prefer to be called the San [53:44] people. What were these people like? He [53:48] shared an example: once, some Europeans [53:51] witnessed these people, whom they [53:53] considered savages. A companion was [53:56] drowning in the river, and they quickly [53:58] saved him. After pulling him out, they [54:01] brought him to the roadside. It was the [54:05] middle of winter and very cold; each of [54:08] them took off their own furs to cover [54:10] him, trying their best to keep him warm [54:13] , even though they were all shivering [54:15] from the cold themselves. Kropotkin [54:18] said, is this not moving? Well, later [54:22] on, we arrived at the so-called [54:24] primitive or barbarian age—the age [54:27] after the advent of written history. In [54:30] that era, we know that states like the [54:32] Roman Empire considered many people [54:35] across the European continent who were [54:37] not under their conquest to be [54:39] barbarians. Take for example the famous [54:42] Celts, the ancestors of today's Irish, [54:45] or the Gauls, the ancestors of today's [54:48] French—just how "barbaric" were those [54:51] people? It turns out they had no [54:53] government, no vast public power like [54:56] the Roman Empire to build a Pantheon or [54:58] colosseum, but what was their life like [55:01] ? They organized into small communes, [55:06] and within these communes, you could [55:08] see that although they had the concept [55:10] of family and each household had some [55:13] private land, they still maintained [55:15] public land where they worked [55:17] collectively, with the produce [55:18] belonging to the entire community. It [55:24] was almost like the "public fields" [55:26] from the legendary Well-Field system in [55:28] ancient China. Later, in the Middle [55:31] Ages, a multitude of cities emerged [55:33] across Europe—these free cities. In [55:38] these cities, we can see a scene where [55:40] the citizens of each city would [55:42] organize themselves and govern [55:44] themselves. It was a relatively [55:48] democratic system, far more democratic [55:50] than that of a kingdom. In this system, [55:54] you could find that their judicial [55:56] officials were appointed by themselves, [55:58] and even when they needed to mobilize [56:01] an army, wage war, or defend themselves [56:03] , they would only appoint a commander [56:05] on a temporary basis. If any king or [56:08] lord tried to control them, even if [56:11] they were forced to concede, they made [56:14] the king or lord abide by their local [56:16] customs and laws. To give a simple [56:19] example, take Venice; we know that [56:22] Venice is composed of many islands. [56:24] Actually, for a long time in this city, [56:26] each island had its own court, its own [56:29] judicial system, and its own [56:30] administrative bureaucrats—though [56:33] these weren't really bureaucrats, but [56:35] rather people who took turns serving in [56:37] those roles. So, is everything that has [56:40] been said true or false? First, when we [56:43] talk about the phenomenon of mutual aid [56:46] among animals in nature, we can say [56:48] that Kropotkin was indeed one of the [56:51] first to observe this. However, while [56:56] he explained these phenomena, he didn't [56:59] clarify the rationale behind them; [57:01] nonetheless, we can say his [57:03] observations inspired many later [57:05] biologists to study the fact that a [57:08] form of altruism does indeed appear in [57:10] animals—but what is really going on? [57:16] We will not follow up on that in [57:18] today's program. As for the long [57:22] history he described, human states of [57:24] spontaneous mutual aid, cooperation, [57:27] and autonomy did indeed occur and exist [57:29] in history; it’s just that they [57:31] weren't centralized and emphasized as a [57:34] major event the way he did. Most of the [57:38] time, what we see is war or conflict, [57:41] isn't that right? Well then, why is it [57:43] that we don't usually pay attention to [57:45] those other things? Kropotkin puts it [57:48] this way: he says it's because modern [57:50] history has buried them. What kind of [57:53] history is modern history? The history [57:55] we know today is the kind of history [57:58] that modern states like to tell. This [58:00] history elevates individual values and [58:02] constantly emphasizes how heroic, [58:04] iconic figures break free from [58:06] traditional constraints, feeling that [58:09] living in those past communities put [58:11] you under great pressure, making you [58:13] unhappy and compelling you to break out [58:15] . It further stresses that these heroes [58:18] dared to take risks and defy convention [58:20] , creating immortal legacies, such as [58:23] founding a new nation. Our current view [58:26] of history is constructed by these [58:28] great figures, which leads us to forget [58:30] what Kropotkin cared about most: the [58:33] grassroots common people, the peasants, [58:35] and the lower classes—the spirit of [58:37] cooperation they originally possessed, [58:40] which he believed still existed even [58:42] after the rise of modern [58:44] industrialization, modern states, and [58:46] modern capitalism. For example, there [58:49] was the spirit of mutual aid among [58:51] neighbors. I remember when I was a [58:53] child in Hong Kong, in those row houses [58:55] or public housing estates, you could [58:57] see that people didn't need to lock [58:59] their doors. Why? If someone had to go [59:02] out to work, they would just leave [59:03] their children with the neighbors. You [59:05] didn't need to stockpile so much [59:07] firewood, rice, or salt at home; if you [59:09] needed something, you'd just go next [59:11] door and take it, and no one would ask [59:13] for money. Everyone left their doors [59:15] open all day, so there was no need for [59:18] security guards. This is completely [59:20] different from the wealthy families [59:22] Kropotkin described, where you don't [59:24] even know the surname of your neighbor [59:26] and have no social interaction with [59:28] them. So, as Kropotkin draws his [59:33] conclusion, what is it that he really [59:36] wants to tell us? The state has [59:45] swallowed up all social functions, [59:47] which inevitably fosters the [59:49] development of a self-serving, [59:51] narrow-minded individualism. The more [59:53] obligations we owe to the state, the [59:56] fewer mutual obligations citizens will [59:58] clearly have toward one another. In the [60:01] Middle Ages, everyone belonged to a [60:03] guild or a brotherhood, and brothers [60:06] had the duty to take turns caring for a [60:09] sick fellow member; but now? We merely [60:12] tell our neighbors the address of the [60:14] nearest public hospital. Even in savage [60:18] human societies, when two people [60:20] quarrel and fight, if a third party [60:23] stands by without intervening and the [60:25] fight results in a homicide, that [60:27] behavior means they themselves will be [60:30] treated as a murderer. But according to [60:34] the current theory that everything is [60:36] protected by the state, bystanders [60:39] don't need to intervene; whether to [60:41] intervene or not is the police's [60:43] business. In the land of the Mongols, [60:47] among the Buriats, it is considered a [60:49] shameful act to eat without calling out [60:52] three times to ask if anyone needs to [60:54] share in the meal. Yet now, a [60:57] respectable citizen only needs to pay [61:00] their taxes; they can simply watch the [61:03] hungry go hungry. As a result, the [61:07] theory that people can, and must, [61:09] achieve their own happiness without [61:12] regard for the needs of others has come [61:15] to dominate law, science, and religion [61:18] entirely. In the passage we just read. [61:25] What is it that Kropotkin specifically [61:28] wants to emphasize? He wants to tell us [61:30] something very important, which is: [61:33] don't we modern people often feel that [61:35] human relationships are very cold? [61:38] Feeling that everyone is selfish and [61:40] self-interested, and that what everyone [61:42] is pursuing is the maximization of [61:44] their own personal gain. We feel that [61:46] such a perspective not only aligns with [61:49] an extension of Darwinian evolutionary [61:52] theory in biology, but also that the [61:54] modern state has replaced the need for [61:57] neighborly mutual aid. The modern state [62:02] has replaced everything that ordinary [62:04] people used to be able to handle [62:07] spontaneously; even your economic [62:09] activities and your very survival can [62:11] be satisfied through the state and the [62:14] market mechanisms it maintains. In this [62:19] situation, the innate sociality or [62:21] mutual aid of human beings has [62:23] disappeared, replaced by a spirit of [62:26] individualism. In other words, the [62:30] ideology of individualism is a modern [62:33] product, which only emerged alongside [62:36] the rise of the modern state. So, under [62:39] these circumstances, the problem we [62:42] just mentioned arises. When the streets [62:45] are chaotic, with cars parked [62:47] haphazardly and the ground is dirty, [62:49] our first thought is not to go help out [62:51] ourselves, or for the neighborhood to [62:53] take initiative, but to ask why the [62:55] state or government isn't managing it. [62:59] To believe that such a society violates [63:01] human nature, and even goes against our [63:04] biological essence, is naturally a very [63:07] bad thing. Now, as for this argument, [63:10] would you say it is correct? In fact, [63:12] the vast majority of people today would [63:15] consider this an outdated argument. Not [63:18] only is Kropotkin's theory outdated, [63:21] but even anarchism as a whole is no [63:23] longer regarded as a serious political [63:26] doctrine. Of course, anarchists still [63:29] exist in the world today, such as the [63:32] famous leftist linguist Noam Chomsky. [63:34] There are also groups that still [63:37] identify as anarchist organizations, [63:39] for example, the National Confederation [63:41] of Labor in Spain, which has 60,000 [63:43] registered dues-paying members every [63:46] year and managed to win one million [63:48] votes in the last Spanish election. So, [63:51] naturally, these things still exist. [63:54] However, as a school of thought that [63:56] was once popular and widespread across [63:58] the globe, it has been thoroughly [64:01] marginalized and even forgotten. Why is [64:03] that? Let us return to the situation of [64:06] the May Fourth Movement back then. As I [64:10] mentioned at the beginning of the [64:12] program, during the May Fourth era, [64:14] anarchism was one of the most popular [64:16] social trends in China. For instance, [64:19] the publications released by anarchists [64:22] at the time could be considered the [64:24] most numerous among all types of [64:26] periodicals, and they also had the [64:28] largest circulation. Many anarchist [64:30] thinkers, including Kropotkin, grew up [64:33] in such an environment, which only made [64:36] him feel more inferior. But how did he [64:39] overcome this sense of inferiority? The [64:41] method is simple: turn that inferiority [64:44] into pride. How could inferiority [64:46] possibly turn into pride? It is [64:48] possible. You stop viewing the distance [64:51] between you and the world as being cast [64:53] aside due to some physical defect, and [64:55] instead, reframe it as a sign of your [64:57] disdain for the world. "I don't care to [65:00] play with you people; I don't need you, [65:02] and I won't take you along to play [65:04] anyway." He transformed his attitude [65:06] toward the world into this kind of [65:08] stance. Okay, but even in such a [65:10] twisted state of mind that we see in [65:13] Mizoguchi, there still exists a [65:15] yearning. One cannot live without [65:17] dreams, right? As the movie says, how [65:20] right that is. Otherwise, what is the [65:21] difference between a person and a [65:22] salted fish? What is his dream? That [65:24] would be the Golden Pavilion. Why? [65:27] Because when his father was young, he [65:29] had served as an apprentice and studied [65:31] at the Golden Pavilion. After returning [65:33] , he couldn't stop praising it, and [65:35] from the time his son was young, he [65:37] would always tell him, "Oh, you must go [65:39] to the Golden Pavilion; it is the most [65:41] beautiful place in the world." And [65:43] indeed, later on, his father passed [65:45] away, and because of his father's [65:47] connection, he was able to go to the [65:49] Golden Pavilion to study. He became a [65:51] novice monk there, an apprentice, and [65:54] hoped to climb his way up step by step. [65:57] As for his mother's expectations, she [65:59] hoped that he wouldn't bother trying to [66:01] inherit the family business, as there [66:03] was nothing left to inherit; his father [66:05] had long since mortgaged the temple [66:07] when he fell critically ill. Sold it? [66:10] Why not just work hard at Kinkaku-ji [66:12] and eventually succeed as the head [66:14] priest there? Right, so moving on, even [66:17] during this process, we see that things [66:19] still didn't go very smoothly for him. [66:22] It was precisely because of his [66:23] inherent flaws and the distorted [66:25] outlook on life he had developed over [66:27] the past decade or two that he felt [66:29] completely out of place with everyone [66:31] else. Even after he entered university, [66:33] his academic performance remained [66:35] inconsistent, and throughout that [66:36] entire period, he only had two friends. [66:38] One friend was Kagawa, whom he had [66:41] known since he was very young. [66:43] Communication with Kagawa wasn't [66:45] entirely smooth either, because of his [66:47] stutter, but whenever he struggled to [66:49] speak or had trouble fully expressing [66:52] his thoughts, Kagawa would translate [66:54] for him, turning his words into ideas [66:56] and stories that were easy for ordinary [66:59] people to understand—bright, positive [67:01] messages. In reality, though, he might [67:04] have been thinking something entirely [67:06] different—thoughts conjured up in his [67:09] own dark little mind, filled with [67:11] narrow-minded, eccentric, and extreme [67:13] notions. Yet, he felt this was fine, [67:15] because his friendship with Kagawa— [67:17] even though Kagawa didn't fully [67:19] understand him, or perhaps didn't [67:21] understand him at all—meant that [67:23] things from his own strange little mind [67:25] , once passed through Kagawa’s mouth, [67:27] became things that everyone in the [67:29] world could easily understand and [67:31] accept. Kagawa became his only normal [67:34] link to this real world. His other [67:36] friend was the complete opposite; that [67:39] person was called Tsurukawa. Please [67:41] note, both Tsurukawa and Kagawa were [67:44] monks just like him—young monks still [67:46] in training. As for Kagawa, he was born [67:49] with his legs turned inward, so he [67:51] hopped when he walked, making it [67:53] obvious to everyone that he was [67:55] disabled, but. But for this person with [67:58] a disability, his temperament became [68:00] more intense, eccentric, and [68:02] melancholic, as if he wanted to use his [68:05] own flaws like a fire of sin to burn [68:08] the entire world, seeking revenge on [68:10] others through quite bizarre and even [68:13] base means—bullying people, deceiving [68:16] them, and even taking possession of [68:18] women's bodies and hearts. Right, [68:21] exactly; these monks, including the old [68:24] head priest of the Golden Pavilion in [68:26] the novel, often went down to the [68:28] pleasure quarters of Kyoto to roam and [68:31] visit prostitutes, which, within their [68:33] circle, seemed to be considered a [68:35] matter of no consequence at all. So, [68:38] after talking for so long, what exactly [68:40] does the Golden Pavilion represent in [68:43] this novel? For Mizoguchi, the Golden [68:45] Pavilion was a thing of supreme beauty [68:47] from the stories his father told him in [68:50] childhood, to the time he actually [68:52] moved into the temple and lived day and [68:54] night with this relic hall—which we [68:57] commonly call the Golden Pavilion today [68:59] —with its magnificent golden [69:01] brilliance; it sparked in him further [69:04] imagination and even speculation. This [69:06] novel is told entirely as an [69:08] autobiography from his perspective, and [69:10] the language is laden with a great deal [69:13] of philosophical reflection. Those who [69:16] are unaccustomed to it might find it [69:17] difficult to digest at first, but if [69:19] you get into it, you will discover that [69:21] Mishima's unique philosophical [69:23] monologue has a certain charm—take, [69:25] for instance, what is said about the [69:27] Golden Pavilion within the story. He [69:29] realized that while the Golden Pavilion [69:31] appears to be a national treasure, in [69:34] an ancient city like Kyoto, which has [69:36] often been ravaged by great fires and [69:38] was a battleground in the past— [69:41] frequently suffering from war and [69:43] disaster—the Golden Pavilion has [69:45] survived for hundreds of years, seeming [69:47] like something in this world that could [69:50] never be destroyed. However, he [69:52] believed that if you just think about [69:54] it, you will find: do you assume the [69:56] Golden Pavilion is immortal compared to [69:58] us humans, and that we are the ones who [70:00] are mortal? You are wrong. Our human [70:03] bodies, in this so-called mortality, [70:05] are actually the ones that continue; [70:08] why is that? Because for every one of [70:10] us, even if I die, we can carry on our [70:13] lineage, so my DNA, my genes, can [70:15] continue to be passed down from [70:17] generation to generation. Conversely, [70:19] what about the Golden Pavilion? So, [70:22] this did indeed stabilize the situation [70:25] in that region, but a place cannot be [70:27] governed by high-pressure martial law [70:30] for very long. As the locals grew [70:32] increasingly dissatisfied, do you know [70:35] what Cesare Borgia did? Think about it: [70:38] it was your idea to suppress the place [70:40] firmly. You sent your trusted assistant [70:43] to handle it, and now the local people [70:45] are extremely unhappy with the [70:47] assistant you dispatched. So, Cesare [70:49] Borgia summoned him back. Four days [70:53] later, the man's body was cut in two, [70:56] split at the waist, and left in the [70:58] city square for all the locals to see; [71:01] anyone walking by would see the corpse [71:04] lying there. In this way, the local [71:07] people's anger and dissatisfaction were [71:10] appeased. Because the man who had been [71:12] the cruelest to them was finished off [71:15] by his own boss, and at the same time, [71:17] everyone was filled with fear and awe [71:19] of him. Oh, what kind of person was [71:22] this leader? How could he do such a [71:25] thing? Everyone was shocked, including [71:27] Machiavelli, who witnessed the whole [71:29] situation at the time. He was shocked [71:32] by what he saw, yet at the same time, [71:34] he was full of admiration. When faced [71:36] with a figure like this who might [71:38] threaten your hometown of Florence with [71:40] his army, what would you do? He engaged [71:43] in complex negotiations with them and [71:45] handed over a treasure of Florence, an [71:47] important figure whose fame was already [71:50] known throughout Europe at the time. He [71:53] handed him over, serving somewhat as a [71:55] hostage, or you could say as a gift to [71:58] appease them, hoping they would spare [72:01] Florence. Do you know who the person he [72:03] sent away was? It was Leonardo da Vinci [72:06] . So, for a period of time, Leonardo da [72:09] Vinci served this Cesare Borgia. [72:12] However, some say that during that [72:14] period, Leonardo actually acted as a [72:16] spy for Florence, but that is difficult [72:19] to verify, so we won't discuss it for [72:21] now. Returning to Machiavelli, he was [72:23] serving his country diligently, but [72:26] before long, an incident occurred. What [72:29] was this incident? It involved a family [72:31] that had held power in this country for [72:34] a long time. They had been overthrown [72:36] and driven out by the people, and the [72:38] country was then in a state of a [72:40] republic with slightly more democratic [72:43] elements. But at this moment, this [72:45] family unexpectedly staged a comeback [72:47] with the help of Spanish forces and [72:49] regained control of the city. This [72:51] family was the Medici family. The [72:54] Medici family is world-renowned in [72:56] European history, once being the [72:58] wealthiest family in all of Europe. It [73:00] was precisely this family’s patronage [73:03] and their generosity toward arts and [73:05] culture that made Florence the heart of [73:08] the entire Renaissance. But even though [73:10] the Medici family’s wealth rivaled [73:12] that of nations, consider this: many [73:14] great European powers of the time [73:16] possessed massive armies, yet they [73:18] actually had to borrow money from the [73:20] Medici. Therefore, in many cases, [73:22] diplomatic disputes had to be mediated [73:24] by the Medici family. Even so, the [73:27] Medici family had a particular trait. [73:29] What kind of trait? For a very long [73:32] time in Florence, they held no public [73:35] office whatsoever. They always remained [73:38] in the shadows, pulling the strings of [73:40] everything in the state from behind the [73:43] scenes. Take, for example, one of their [73:45] old leaders, Cosimo de' Medici, who is [73:48] considered a great patriarch of the [73:50] family. He was a strange man; he was so [73:53] wealthy, so learned, and so fond of [73:55] befriending scholars from all walks of [73:58] life, yet he had one characteristic: he [74:00] was extremely humble, never attended [74:03] grand public events, and disliked [74:05] high-profile appearances. When walking [74:07] through the city, whenever he [74:09] encountered a citizen older than [74:11] himself, he would always humbly step [74:13] aside to let them pass. Being such a [74:15] man, he likely upheld this family style [74:17] of remaining hidden in the background [74:19] to manipulate the political landscape. [74:21] They had once been driven out, but now, [74:23] they were back. What did their return [74:26] signify? It meant that the short-lived [74:28] republic served by Machiavelli had come [74:31] to an end. Naturally, his life became [74:33] difficult during this time. He was [74:35] imprisoned and then exiled. The place [74:38] of his exile wasn't very far, actually [74:40] just outside the city; I have even [74:42] visited his former residence there. [74:44] When I visited that place, I saw that [74:46] from his residence, one could look out [74:49] and see the dome of Florence's famous [74:51] Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore. He [74:54] would stay there, gazing at Florence [74:56] every day, longing to enter the city [74:59] and return to serve his homeland. But [75:01] he was exiled, so there was nothing he [75:04] could do. During those years, he took [75:06] on the role of a country gentleman, [75:09] spending his days studying the [75:10] historical works of Greece and Rome, [75:13] most importantly the writings of great [75:15] ancient historians. For instance, there [75:18] was Livy, a significant historian [75:20] during the transition period between [75:22] the Roman Republic and the Empire. Livy [75:25] wrote a very important book called " [75:27] History of Rome," which specifically [75:29] studies the history of Rome from its [75:31] early founding, through the kingdom and [75:33] the republic, until the fall of the [75:35] republic and its transformation into an [75:38] empire. Machiavelli invested a great [75:41] deal of effort into politics, but [75:43] before he devoted himself to academia, [75:45] he certainly never forgot his desire to [75:47] return to the political stage and [75:49] contribute his knowledge, just like [75:52] many other humanists of that era. So, [75:55] he wrote a small booklet, a booklet [75:58] that was actually meant to be sent back [76:01] to the ruler of Florence at the time, [76:03] Lorenzo de 'Medici, for what purpose? [76:06] He hoped to show him that even though I [76:09] was exiled by your family, and even [76:11] though I was a minister of the previous [76:14] regime, my talents and abilities are [76:16] just too exceptional—not using me [76:18] would truly be a great loss. Therefore, [76:21] he wanted to offer his statecraft to [76:24] the new master of the country, hoping [76:26] that they would summon him back. This [76:29] booklet is the very one we are [76:31] discussing today, the one I am holding: [76:34] *The Prince*. As*The Prince*was written [76:37] with such a purpose, it is very [76:39] straightforward and concise. On the [76:43] surface, it fits a very common literary [76:46] genre of the time, known as a "mirror [76:49] for princes." What is a "mirror for [76:52] princes"? It is somewhat like our [76:55] Chinese*Zizhi Tongjian*, where [76:57] humanists would take the historical [77:00] rise and fall of a place, summarize [77:02] moral lessons, and instruct future [77:05] generations on how to govern, among [77:07] other things. The book starts by [77:10] clearly distinguishing between several [77:12] types of state regimes. Machiavelli [77:15] argued that all state regimes in the [77:17] world fall into no more than two [77:20] categories. One category is [77:22] principalities, and the other is [77:24] republics. Please note, the "republic" [77:27] mentioned here is not like the People's [77:29] Republic of China or the Federal [77:31] Republic of America today. The republic [77:36] we refer to here, its original meaning, [77:39] actually refers to any state where [77:41] power is not inherited through [77:43] succession, where power is divided [77:45] rather than held by any single person [77:48] or faction, allowing for some form or [77:54] degree of public nature where this [77:56] power is shared by more people to [77:58] participate in state affairs—that can [78:00] be called a republic. In such a [78:04] republic, the democratic component can [78:07] vary; at its minimum, it might be an [78:09] oligarchic republic, but when it is [78:12] more extensive, like the Republic of [78:14] Florence that Machiavelli served, what [78:16] kind of republic was it? It divided the [78:19] people into various social groups, [78:21] organizations, and guilds. For example, [78:24] if you were in the wool industry, there [78:26] was a wool guild; if you were a [78:28] stonemason, was there not a [78:29] stonemason's guild? Different guilds [78:32] all have their own representatives in [78:34] this supreme political decision-making [78:36] body, or they share the power to make [78:38] decisions together, enjoying the [78:40] formulation and enactment of major [78:42] national policies; that is the kind of [78:44] republic it is. Then Machiavelli says, [78:46] this kind of republic is not our [78:47] subject, so I won't talk about it for [78:49] now; let's talk about monarchies [78:51] instead. He says monarchies are divided [78:52] into two types: one is a hereditary [78:54] monarchy, where your father is the [78:55] monarch, so you become the monarch; we [78:57] won't concern ourselves with this type, [78:59] we will focus only on newly created [79:00] monarchies. And newly created [79:02] monarchies are further divided into two [79:04] types: one is where you rely on your [79:05] own ability and talent, command a [79:07] massive army, and conquer a territory; [79:09] we won't discuss this one either, we [79:10] will talk about the other type. What is [79:12] that other type? It is a monarchy where [79:15] one becomes the ruler of a state by [79:17] relying on luck and external forces. [79:19] Why does he only talk about this kind? [79:22] Because this was the situation for the [79:24] returning Medici family; the Medici [79:25] family, with the help of Spanish forces [79:27] , returned to Florence after more than [79:29] a decade of exile, so he was writing [79:31] specifically for them and thus [79:33] discussed this type. So he says, for [79:35] this kind of monarchy, you must pay [79:36] attention to one thing, which is [79:38] grasping timing and seizing luck. This [79:40] concept of timing and luck has always [79:42] been something Europeans highly value. [79:44] In the Roman era, they regarded luck as [79:46] a goddess, and this goddess was a [79:48] favorable one. Of course, luck is not [79:50] always kind or good to every one of us, [79:53] right? But we humans should strive to [79:56] do things to attract the attention of [79:58] this goddess—she is a woman, after [80:00] all—so what can we do to attract her? [80:02] Naturally, it requires very masculine [80:05] virtues, such as your courage and your [80:07] strength. However, by the Middle Ages, [80:09] everyone believed in Catholicism; while [80:11] the mythical symbol of the goddess of [80:13] luck remained, it was no longer as [80:14] important, because everyone felt that [80:16] worldly things—whether you have good [80:18] luck or bad luck—did not matter. The [80:20] important thing was to look at the [80:21] afterlife, whether your soul is saved [80:23] and you can go to heaven. Ah.