斯诺的两种文化观
自然辩证法 摘要
如控制论创始人维纳认为他讨论的是地地道道的莱布尼茨问题，一般系统论创始人贝塔朗菲认为系统的概念也有漫长的历史，与莱布尼茨的自然哲学、马克思黑格尔的辩证法有关。
（3）哲学问题的探讨促进科学问题的解决
如现代哲学和科学关于“时间”问题的讨论。牛顿可逆时间、柏格森时间（创造进化论）、普利高津讨论时间。
辩证唯物自然观的基本内容：
(辩证的自然图景)
自然界是普遍联系和永恒发展的物质系统
人化的自然的思想
自然、人与社会相统一的大自然的思想
辩证唯物自然观的基本特点
1.是一种唯物辩证的自然观，体现了唯物论与辩证法的统一。
2.所揭示的自然观包括了人化的自然界，体现了天然自然与人化自然的统一。
3.将自然、人类与社会历史统一起来，将其看成一个统一的历史过程，遵循着统一的辩证法规律，体现了自然史与人类史的统一。
内在动力
1、科学理论与科学实验的矛盾
科学理论建立在科学实验之上
不论在哪里，实验方面的研究总是理论认识的必要前提，而且理论方面的主要进展只是在实验结果的压力下而不是依靠思辨来取得的。海森伯
科学实验总在一定理论指导下
2、科学理论内部的矛盾：悖论
理论矛盾（1）理论矛盾（2）悖论
高技术
高技术是建立在现代自然科学理论和最新的工艺技术基础
中世纪的光辉
中世纪的黑暗也透射着人类文明的光辉。基督教对文化的发展也产生了重大的积极影响。中世纪的文化，不仅表现为庞大的神学—哲学体系的建构，而且也表现为罗马法的恢复，自然科学研究的苏醒，特别是在文学和艺术方面，更是取得了辉煌灿烂的成就，不仅出现了一系列英雄文学和骑士文学的光辉篇章，而且创造出一种惊天地、泣鬼神的哥特式建筑，它使中世纪人的精神文化理念，在视觉形象艺术里达到了登峰造极的表现。基督教文化的繁荣把中世纪精神推到了顶峰，使它成为西方历史的一个卓越而独特的阶段。
《两种文化》
◆斯诺讲演的题目是“两种文化与科学革命”，“两种文化”，指的是“文学知识分子”（斯诺原语）的文化和自然科学家的文化，斯诺声称他在两者之间发现了深刻的相互怀疑和相互不理解，而这种怀疑和不理解，将对运用技术以缓解世上问题的前景产生破坏性后果。
◆诸如此类的背叛，乃是由于作家们习惯以对个人生活悲剧性的感受来掩盖对其人类同胞的需要的感知：这种由“失败感、自我陶醉和道德真空”所形成的态度，“科学文化是能够几乎完全免除的”。
◆对“两种文化”的这一最初概述，其中心思想可以概括为：“科学文化能赋予我们的最大的财富是……一种道德的文化。
”◆“两种文化”思想的核心是一个关于学术分科的观念，其他事情，如教育结构问题、社会态度问题、政府决策问题等等，显然都是与之相关的。
◆至于斯诺的中心思想在几十年里失去了一些市场，这不仅是由于概念本身的不可避免的老化过程，也是由于产生了重要的思想和社会变迁。
◆由此观之，“科学”知识人类文化生活的一个方面，与艺术和宗教一样，是人类社会对这个世界的看法的一种表达，同样是与政治和道德等社会的基本问题不可分离的。
◆说到文学方面的学科，那就必须认识到，与科学相对应的是文学批评，而不是文学本身（严格的说，文学本身所对应的是自然，犹如科学的研究对象）。
◆当然，在这个交叉学科（Science and Literature）中中或曰重叠学科的领域中，结合的方式是存在问题的：有时候它仅仅是拼盘，两个骄傲的王国并列在一起，各自面目依旧；而更多的则是一个饥饿作者的题材要服从另一个的一员。
而在时间中，科学家并不是图应用他们的实验技术来掩饰莎士比亚的喜剧或简×奥斯磸汀的小说；但文学理论家们去汲汲于扩展其话语和分析的范围，。
力图在哪怕最纯粹的科学研究论文里揭露出惊人的象征性涵义。
◆不同的学可与写作活动之间有着明显不同的关系，此即可以作为划分学可哦一条轴线。
在许多实验科学里，写，是没有什么创造性的，它不参与发现过程，仅仅是时候的报告，“记录”而已，这一点与人文学术迥异。
李燕骄斯诺命题与两种文化
斯诺命题与两种文化摘要斯诺命题提出了一种关于学科研究新的看法，认为存在两种文化，即科学文化和人文文化，由于这两种文化的主题在教育背景，基本素养，研究工具和方法等诸多方面的差异而使得他们在关于文化的基础理念和价值判断上经常处于相互对立的局面。
本文则欲在阐述科学文化和人文文化虽然存在对立但同时他们也具有融合的基础和趋势。
斯诺命题是科学文化和人文文化相互演化过程中的一种状态的表现，而不是全部，科学与文化需要被更加科学的对待。
科学作为人文的基础，使人文文化更正确和可靠，人文作为科学的导向使科学更具创新和人性。
科学文化与人文文化既对立又统一，统一于实践，并随着实践的发展而发展。
科学文化与人文文化处于分中有合，合中有分，分久必合，合久必分的循环演变中。
关键词斯诺命题科学文化人文文化对立分野融合统一循环演变2009年11月27日，中国农业部颁发了两种转基因水稻和一种转基因玉米的安全证书。
这一事件顿时引爆了整个中国关于转基因的空前关注和讨论。
争论大体分为两派，主推派和反对派，两派围绕是否将转基因进行商业化的推广进行了激烈的论战。
以转基因领域的研究者为主体的研究者提出了转基因的各种好处，比如作物的结实率，产率，抗虫性，抗逆性等等通过转基因技术获得了极大的提升，进行转基因作物的推广将会极大改善当前疲软乏力的农业现状。
而以各行各业的从业者组成的反对派对转基因提出了质疑，认为转基因作物既非天然的那就是危险的，转基因作物听似乎很美，但是未知的后果和安全风险却让人严重担忧。
争论持续着，似乎永远都没有完结。
其实转基因的争论很早以前就开始了，1983年美国孟山都公司推出世界第一个转基因农作物品种--烟草以来，转基因的争论就没有间断过。
只不过到现在似乎突然变得很严重了，科学家提倡，普通大众反对。
科学和人文似乎走向了对立面，科学家用各种数据来证明转基因的好处，而普通大众只需用一句很有杀伤力的话就可以让科学家哑口无言，“转基因的讨论有千千万万，但我的命只有一条，而且不可重来。
科学文化与人文文化的关系
科学文化与人文文化的关系两种文化的提出英国学者查尔斯·帕希·斯诺,1905-19801959年在剑桥大学的讲演中指出现代社会存在着相互对立的两种文化,一种是人文文化,一种是科学文化;一方是文学知识分子,一方是科学家,并犹以物理学家最有代表性;斯诺认为,科学是一种文化,属于这种文化的科学家们彼此之间尽管也有许多互不理解之处,但是总的来说,他们具有共同的价值标准和行为准则;科学作为一种文化,其约束力甚至比宗教、政治和阶级的模式更强;科学文化可比喻为日神阿波罗文化,人文文化又称为酒神文化;人文文化“人文”一词的英文humanity来源于拉丁文humanitas人性、教养,有这样一些含义：人道或仁慈的性质或状态,慈爱或慷慨的行为或性情;人道指对人和人类福利的关心；博爱指对人和人类的广泛的爱；人本主义指与神本主义相对立,主张人是宇宙万物的主宰;人文文化是以人道、博爱和人本主义为主要内容的文化,它兴起于欧洲文艺复兴时期,它与科学文化追求真实理性至上不同,追求首先是美与善;并对理性之外的意志、信仰、情感和潜意识给予了很大的关注;两种文化的对立从历史上讲,人文主义与理性主义并不是一开始就对立的;在文艺复兴时期,人文文化和科学文化共同反对至高无上的神权;与神学不同,这两种文化都推崇人,认为人和动物区别在于有理性;理性是人的本质;要冲破神学的束缚就要唤醒人的理性;显然近代科学是在人文主义的帮助下诞生的;只是在科学主义把理性推崇至极,而人文主义对非理性或反理性顶礼膜拜时,两种文化的鸿沟才越来越深;斯诺认为：“科学文化与人文文化分裂的原因,最主要是我们对专业化教育的过分推崇和我们的社会模式固定下来的倾向;我们总是希望一个人能很快地在某个领域达到深入的境界,而且认为专业化教育是达到这一目的的最有效的捷径;我们也是总是不由自主地希望我们现存的社会模式永久不变,力图使它固定下来,按这个模式发展下去,而这却是一种保守僵化的倾向;”近代科学发展建立在对自然界进行分门别类研究和每门科学内部的独立分析研究的基础上;其特点是把整体分解为部分、把复杂的分解为简单的,把高级的运动形式还原为低级的运动形式;“科学的兴起把人推入一条专门化训练的隧道;人越在知识方面有所进展,就越看不清整体世界,也看不清自己,于是就进一步陷入了…存在的遗忘;”以逻辑经验主义为代表的科学哲学唯一崇尚的是科学知识和科学方法,并把科学同其它一切知识对立起来,主张从科学中清除价值,拒斥世界观,认为不能证实的知识都是无意义的;理性脱离了人文,丧失了人类的终极价值,沦为技术理性或工具理性;在哲学界里,叔本华和尼采等人通过强调意识、意志与理性主义抗衡,存在主义把人的生存问题置于哲学的中心位置,文德尔班、李凯尔特、狄尔泰等人则试图建立与自然科学不同的历史科学、文化科学和精神科学等等;认为研究精神和价值应有与研究自然科学不同的方法;两种文化的交融趋势两种文化的交融各自双方;20世纪中期以后,科学技术综合化、整体化和社会化趋势日益明显,在科学内部涌现了一批交叉科学和综合科学如：系统科学、生态学、技术经济学等;另外科学哲学家波普尔Karl Popper,1922-1994认为一切科学发现中都包含非理性因素;库恩thomas Kuhn,1922-1996强调社会和心理因素对接受某一理论的影响,费阿本德Paul Feyerabend,1924—1994则认为科学并没有独特的方法,也没有固定的普遍的方法论原则;他提倡多元方法论原则;两种文化的交融也是时代的要求;现代社会,人们发现科学不是万能的,任何科学技术的出现既可以给人类带来幸福,也可以给人类带来灾难;这使人在思考,科学技术能确保人类的幸福吗为什么有人享受着物质文明却并不感到幸福为什么物质财富如此丰富的今天还没有消除贫困和不公正人是不是会成为技术的奴隶技术是否终将失控爱因斯坦就说过：“我们的问题不能由科学来解决,而只能由人自己来解决;”确实,研究科学技术本身以及科学技术对社会的影响,需要考虑人文、社会因素;科学技术已成了一种包括大量人员、巨额资金、昂贵设备和复杂组织在内的大科学、大技术,成为对社会发展有重大影响的何况产业;科技已不是单纯的知识体系和技能体系,而成为一种社会活动和社会事业;因而出现了科学社会学、技术社会学等学科,以及专门研究科学技术与社会之间的各种关系的科学技术和社会STS;这是20世纪60年代末70年代初延生的一个新的研究领域,它以科学、技术、社会之间的关系为研究对象,不仅从历史、经济、哲学、文化与社会学等角度研究科学技术,而且从科学技术的角度研究社会的科学技术化;目前STS的研究和教育在我国和世界许多国家已建制化;这将促进科学文化和人文文化的沟通和融合;。
斯诺《两种文化》
汇报人： xx年xx月xx日
目录
• 引言 • 主题概述 • 科学文化的分析 • 人文文化的分析 • 两种文化的融合与挑战 • 结论与启示
01
引言
背景介绍
20世纪50年代，英国社会和文化发生了显著变化。科技和产 业革命带来了新的发展机遇，同时也带来了一系列社会问题 。人们对文化的认知和价值观念开始出现分歧。
人文文化的成就
艺术创作
人文文化在艺术领域取得了许多杰出的成就，如文学、绘画、音乐等，为人类文明的发展 做出了重要贡献。
社会科学研究
人文文化在社会科学领域的研究和应用，为理解人类社会和文化现象提供了重要的理论和 方法支持。
文化遗产保护
人文文化对于保护和传承人类文化遗产起到了重要作用，对于维护世界文化的多样性和丰 富性具有重要意义。
THANKS
谢谢您的观看
两种文化的影响
要点一
知识领域的分离
要点二
社会结构的影响
两种文化导致知识体系之间的隔阂， 使科学与人文领域难以相互理解和交 流。
两种文化的分离反映在社会结构和教 育体系中，形成片面的知识体系和教 育模式。
要点三
文化冲突与融合
两种文化的对立和冲突同时也在不断 寻求融合与协调，试图弥合知识体系 之间的鸿沟。
科学文化与人文文化 的分裂
c.p.斯诺在书中指出，现代社会中科 学文化与人文文化之间存在明显的分 裂，导致两种文化之间的相互误解和 隔阂。
科学文化的优越性
斯诺认为，科学文化在当代社会中具 有明显的优越性，能够为人类带来实 际的利益和进步，而人文文化则逐渐 被边缘化。
人文文化的危机
斯诺指出，人文文化在现代社会中面 临着严重的危机，其影响力逐渐减弱 ，甚至被视为无关紧要的领域。
再论“两种文化”
再论“两种⽂化”1959年，查尔斯·斯诺（ C. P. Snow，1905-1980）在剑桥作了“两种⽂化”的演讲，引起了⼈们对科学⽂化与⼈⽂⽂化的⼴泛讨论。
斯诺的基本观点可以概括为三个⽅⾯：⼀、两种⽂化有着完全不同的群体，⼈⽂⽂化的代表是⽂学知识分⼦，科学⽂化的代表是科学家，尤其是⾃然科学家；⼆、“两种⽂化”之间存在着⼀条不可逾越的鸿沟，它们之间充满偏见，缺乏了解，不仅在学术观点上有所分歧，在伦理道德层⾯也丝毫没有共同之处；三、产⽣这种分裂的主要原因是英国教育的持续专业化以及社会形态的僵化，也正是因为社会形态的僵化使得英国⽐任何国家都难以重建教育系统，从⽽造成了科学与⼈⽂之间⽆法沟通交流的困境。
要解决这种困境需要进⾏教育改⾰、普及科学⽂化。
对科学家⽽⾔，如果他们了解斯诺的观点，那么这种褒扬科学、贬义⼈⽂的说法，⾃然会使他们充满优越感和⾃豪感，因为斯诺的落脚点是英国传统⽂化对科学⽂化的阻碍，他倡导的是⼀种以科学为核⼼的⽂化。
对⼈⽂学者⽽⾔，则可以看出他们从两种不同的⽴场出发，来利⽤科学与⼈⽂的对⽴。
保守的⼈⽂学者，利⽤这种对⽴来排除“物质的、⾮⼈⽂主义层⾯的”科学，以防科学侵⼊⼈⽂世界；激进的⼈⽂学者，则利⽤这种对⽴来排除“霸权的、社会专制的”科学，保持激进的⼈⽂世界的独⽴⾃主性。
甚⾄在斯诺提出“两种⽂化”这⼀概念之前，就以在科学与⼈⽂之间建⽴沟通桥梁为⼰任的科学史学科，也抵不住诱惑要去使⽤斯诺的概念来证明⾃⾝存在的合法性——科学与⼈⽂的鸿沟需要科学史来联结。
然⽽，斯诺对“两种⽂化”区分是否真的客观合理呢？许多学者对斯诺的概念产⽣了质疑。
质疑他区分的两个群体是否能够真正代表“两种⽂化”？质疑“两种⽂化”不可逾越的鸿沟是否真的存在？质疑“两种⽂化”究竟指的是什么?类似的问题还有很多。
但是，想要批评斯诺“两种⽂化”是特别困难的。
⼀般⼈都会认为科学和⼈⽂的区分是合理性的，在以往的认知概念中确实存在两者之间的差异。
Unit 12 the two cultures
The Two CulturesC. P. Snow（查尔斯·珀西·斯诺Charles Percy Snow）作者：斯诺最值得人们注意的是他关于他“两种文化”这一概念的讲演与书籍。
这一概念在他的《两种文化与科学变革》（The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution，1959年出版）。
在这本书中，斯诺注意到科学与人文中联系的中断对解决世界上的问题是一个主要障碍。
斯诺特别提到如今世界上教育的质量正在逐步地降低。
比如说，很多科学家从未读过查尔斯·狄更斯的作品，同样，艺术工作者对科学也同样的不熟悉。
他写道：斯诺的演讲在发表之时引起了很多的骚动，一部分原因是他在陈述观点时不愿妥协的态度。
他被文学评论家F·R·利维斯（F. R. Leavis）强烈地抨击。
这一激烈的争辩甚至使夫兰达斯与史旺创作了一首主题是热力学第一与第二定律的喜剧歌曲，并起名为《第一与第二定律》（First and Second Law）。
斯诺写到：斯诺同时注意到了另一个分化，即富国与穷国之间的分化。
1 “It’s rather odd,” said G. H. Ha rdy, one afternoon in the early Thirties, “but when we hear about intellectuals nowadays, it doesn’t include people like me and J. J. Thomson and Rutherford.” Hardy was the first mathematician of his generation, J. J. Thomson the first physicist of his; as for Rutherford, he was one of the greatest scientists who have ever lived. Some bright young literary person (I forget the exact context) putting them outside the enclosure reserved for intellectuals seemed to Hardy the best joke for some time. It does not seem quite such a good joke now. The separation between the two cultures has been getting deeper under our eyes;there is now precious little communication between them, little but different kinds of incomprehension1 and dislike.2 The traditional culture, which is, of course, mainly literary, is behaving like a state whose power is rapidly declining—standing on its precarious2 dignity, spending far too much energy on Alexandrian intricacies, [1] occasionally letting fly in fits of aggressive pique3 quite beyond its means, [2] too much on the defensive4 to show any generous imagination to the forces, which must inevitably reshape it. Whereas the scientific culture is expansive, not restrictive, confident at the roots, the more confident after its bout5 of Oppenheimerian self-criticism, certain that history is on its side, impatient, intolerant, and creative rather than critical, good-natured and brash6. Neither culture knows the virtues of the other; often it seems they deliberately do not want to know. [3] The resentment, which the traditional culture feels for the scientific, is shaded with fear; from the other side, the resentment is not shaded so much as brimming7 with irritation. When scientists are faced with an expression of the traditional culture, it tends (to borrow Mr. William Cooper’s eloquent phrase) to make their feet ache.3 It does not need saying that [4]generalizations of this kind are bound to look silly at the edges. There are a good many scientists indistinguishable from literary persons, and vice versa. Even the stereotype generalizations about scientists are misleading without some sort of detail—e.g., the generalization that scientists as a group stand on the political Left. This is only partly true. A very high proportion of engineers is almost as conservative as doctors; of pure scientists; the same would apply to chemists. It is only among physicists and biologists that one finds the Left in strength. If one compared the whole body of scientists with their opposite numbers of the traditional culture (writers, academics, and so on), the total result might be a few per cent, more towards the Left wing, but not more than that. [5]Nevertheless, as a first approximation, the scientific culture is real enough, and so is its difference from the traditional. For anyone like myself, by education a scientist, by calling a writer, at one time moving between groups of scientists and writers in the same evening, the difference has seemed dramatic.4 The first thing, impossible to miss, is that scientists are on the up and up; they have the strength of a social force behind them. If theyare English, they share the experience common to us all—of being in a country sliding economically downhill—but in addition (and to many of them it seems psychologically more important) they belong to something more than a profession, to something more like a directing class of a new society. [6]In a sense oddly divorced from politics, they are the new men. Even the steadiest and most politically conservative of scientific veterans, [7] lurking8 in dignity in their colleges, has some kind of link with the world to come. They do not hate it as their colleagues do; part of their mind is open to it;[8]almost against their will, there is a residual glimmer of kinship there. The young English scientists may and do curse their luck; increasingly they fret9 about the rigidities of their universities, about the ossification10 of the traditional culture which, to the scientists, makes the universities cold and dead; they violently envy their Russian counterparts who have money and equipment without discernible11 limit, who have the whole field wide open. But still they stay pretty resilient12: the same social force sweeps them on. Harwell and Winscale have just as much spirit as Los Alamos and Chalk River: the neat petty bourgeois houses, the tough and clever young, the crowds of children: they are symbols, frontier towns.5 There is a touch of the frontier qualities, in fact, about the whole scientific culture. Its tone is, for example, steadily heterosexual. The difference in social manners between Harwell and Hampstead or as far as that goes between Los Alamos and Greenwich Village, would make an anthropologist blink. [9]About the whole scientific culture, there is an absence—surprising to outsiders—of the feline13 and oblique14. Sometimes it seems that scientists relish15 speaking the truth, especially when it is unpleasant. The climate of personal relations is singularly bracing16, not to say harsh: it strikes bleaklyo n those unused to it, who suddenly find that [10] the scientists’ way of deciding on action is by a full-dress argument, with no regard for sensibilities and no holds barred17. No body of people ever believed more in dialectic as the primary method of attaining sense; [11]and if you want a picture of scientists in their off-moments, it could be just one of a knock-about18 argument. Under the argument there glitter egotisms as rapacious19 as any of ours: but, unlike ours, the egotisms are driven by a common purpose.6 How much of the traditional culture gets through to them? The answer is not simple. A good many scientists, including some of the most gifted, have the tastes of literary persons, read the same things,and lead as much. Broadly, though, [12] the infiltration20 is much less . History gets across to a certain extent, in particular social history: the sheer mechanics21 of living, how men ate, built, traveled, worked, touches a good many scientific imaginations, and so they have fastened on22 such works as Trevelyan’s Social History, and Professor Gordon Childe’s books. Philosophy, the scientific culture view with indifference, especially metaphysics. As Rutherford said cheerfully to Samuel Alexander: “When you think of all the years you’ve been tal king about those things, Alexander, and what does it all add up to? Hot air, nothing but hot air.” A bit less exuberantly23, that is what contemporary scientists would say. They regard it as a major intellectual virtue, to know what not to think about. [13]They might touch their hats to24 linguistic analysis, as a relatively honorable way of wasting time; not so to existentialism25.7 The arts? The only one which is cultivated among scientists is music. It goes both wide and deep; there may possibly be a greater density of musical appreciation than in the traditional culture. In comparison, the graphic arts (except architecture) score little, and poetry not at all. [14]Some novels work their way through, but not as a rule the novels which literary persons set most value on. [15]Thetwo cultures have so few points of contact that the diffusion26 of novels shows the same sort of delay, and exhibits the same oddities, as though they were getting into translation in a foreign country. It is only fairly recently, for instance, that Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh has become more than names. And, just as it is rather startling to find that in Italy Bruce Marshall is by a long shot the best-known British novelist, so it jolts27 one to hear scientists talking with attention of the works of Nevil Shute. In fact, there is a good reason for that: Mr. Shute was himself a high-class engineer, and a book like No Highway is packed with technical stuff that is not only accurate but often original. Incidentally, there are benefits to be gained from listening to intelligent men, [16]utterly removed from the literary scene and unconcerned as to who’s in and who’s out. One can pick up such a comment as a scientist once made, that it looked to him as though the current preoccupations28 of the New Criticism, the extreme concentration on a tiny passage, had made us curiously insensitive to the total flavor of a work, to itscumulative29 effects, to the epic qualities in literature. But, on the other side of the coin, one is just as likely to listen to three of the most massive intellects in Europe happily discussing the merits of The Wallet of Kai-Lung.8 When you meet the younger rank-and-file30 of scientists, it often seems that they do not read at all. The prestige of the traditional culture is high enough for some of them to make a gallant31 shot at it. [17]Oddly enough, the novelist whose name to them has become a token of esoteric32 literary excellence is that difficult highbrow33 Dickens. [18]They approach him in a grim and dutiful spirit as though tackling Finnegan’s Wake, and feel a sense of achievement if they manage to read a book through. But most young techniciansdo not fly so high when you ask them what they read—“As a married man,” one says, “I prefer the garden.” Another says: “I always like just to use my books as tools.” (Difficult to resist speculating what kind of tool a book would make. A sort of hammer?A crude digging instrument?)9 That, or something like it, is a measure of the incommunicabilityof the two cultures. On their side the scientists are losing a great deal. Some of that loss is inevitable: it must and would happen in any society at our technical level. [19]But in this country we make it quite unnecessarily worse by our educational patterns. On the other side, how much does the traditional culture lose by the separation?10 I am inclined to think, even more. Not only practically—we are familiar with those arguments by now—but also intellectually and morally. The intellectual loss is a little difficult to appraise34. Most scientists would claim that you couldn’t comprehend the world unless you know the structure of science, in particular of physical science. In a sense, and a perfectly genuine sense, that is true. Not to have read War and Peace and La Cousine Bette and La Chartreuse de Parme is not to be educated; but so is not to have a glimmer of the Second Law of Thermodynamics35. Yet that case ought not to be pressed too far. It is more justifiable to say that those without any scientific understanding miss a whole body of experience: they are rather like the tone deaf, from whom all musical experience is cut off and who have to get on without it. The intellectual invasions of science are, however, penetrating deeper. Psycho-analysis once looked like a deep invasion, but that was a false alarm; cybernetics may turn out to be the real thing, driving down into the problems of will and cause and motive. If so, those who do not understand the method will not understand the depths of their own cultures.11 But the greatest enrichment the scientific culture could give us is—though it does not originate like that—a moral one. Among scientists, deep-natured men know, as starkly36 as any men have known, that the individual human condition is tragic; [20]for all its triumphs and joys, the essence of it is loneliness and the end death. But what they will not admit is that, because the individual condition is tragic, therefore the social condition must be tragic, too.[21]Because a man must die, that is no excuse for his dying before his time and after a servile37 life. The impulse behind the scientists drives them to limit the area of tragedy, to take nothing as tragic that can conceivably38 lie within men’s will. [22] They have nothing but contempt for those representatives of the traditional culture who use a deep insight into man’s fate to obscure39 the truth, justto hang on to a few perks40. Dostoevski sucking up to the Chancellor Pobedonostsev, who thought the only thing wrong with slavery was that there was not enough of it; the political decadence of the avant-garde41 of 1914, with Ezra Pound finishing up broadcasting for the fascists; Claudel agreeing sanctimoniously42 with the Marshal about the virtue in others’ suffering; Faulkner giving sentimental reasons for treating Negroes as a different species. They are all symptoms of the deepest temptation of the clerks—which is to say: “[23]Because man’s condition is tragic,everyone ought to stay in their place, with mine as it happens somewhere near the top.” From that particular temptation, made up of defeat, self-indulgence, and moral vanity, the scientific culture is almost totally immune. It is that kind of moral health of the scientists, which, in the last few years, the rest of us have needed most; and of which, because the two cultures scarcely touch, we have been most deprived.。
论_两种文化_的分裂与融合_兼论斯诺命题_王文勇
2013年4月第34卷第2期江西教育学院学报（社会科学）Journal of Jiangxi Institute of Education （Social Sciences ）Apr．2013Vol．34No．2收稿日期：2013－02－22基金项目：江西省教育科学“十二五”规划项目“‘两种文化’视域下的高校和谐校园文化建设研究”，编号:12YB058;2012年度江西教育学院科研项目“斯诺的‘两种文化’研究”，编号:12RW04。
作者简介：王文勇(1979—)，男，江西进贤人，副教授，文学博士，从事中国当代文化、科学文化研究。
论“两种文化”的分裂与融合———兼论斯诺命题王文勇(江西教育学院中文系，江西南昌330032)摘要：“两种文化”的分裂，构成了不和谐的文化生态，是当下文化建设中不能回避的深层次难题。
追求“两种文化”的融合，无论就文化的发展历史与现状而言，还是从人的全面发展来看，均十分必要。
融合“两种文化”的路径大概三条：一是交叉式的相互迎合；二是互补式的相互契合；三是混杂式的溶剂化合。
相比较而言，第三种路径是最理想的，却也是最困难的。
关键词：斯诺；两种文化；分裂；融合；路径中图分类号：J04文献标识码：A文章编号：1005－3638（2013）02－0166－04On The Fission and Fusion of “Two Cultures ”———On Both It and Snow ’s PropositionWANG Wen-yong（Department of Chinese Language and Literature ，Jiangxi Institute of Education ，Nanchang 330032，China ）Abstract ：The fission of “two culture ”is not a harmonious ecology of culture．It is a deep －rooted problems which can notbe avoided in the construction of contemporary culture．It is necessary for both the historical development and current situa-tion of culture and the people ’s all －round development to seek to fuse “two cultures ”．there are three paths of fusing “two cultures ”：The first is to cross each other ；the second is the mutual conjunction ；the third is the solvent and hybrid combina-tion．In comparison ，the third is the most ideal path ，but is also the most difficult one．Key Words ：Snow ；two cultures ；fission ；fusion ；path所谓“两种文化”，主要是针对当下社会形态中知识分子的价值取向而言。