第106集 ... 西蒙·德·波伏娃（下）——《模糊性的道德》

嘿，非常感谢你收听这个播客。很高兴你目前很喜欢它。每集的完整文字稿可以在philosophizethis.org找到。要支持这样的节目，请前往patreon.com/philosophizethis。

Hey. Thanks so much for listening to the podcast. Cool that you're enjoying it so far. Full transcripts of every episode at philosophizethis.org. And to support a show like this, go to patreon.com/philosophizethis.

没有你们的帮助，我无法做到这一切。谢谢。上期节目中，我们讨论了萨特的观点，即在我们本质的根基处，存在着一场他称之为‘事实性’与‘超越性’之间持续不断的拉锯战。‘事实性’指的是在任何特定时刻关于我们的真实事实，而‘超越性’则是我们掌握的可能性。萨特认为，人们因这种持续的拉锯战感到极度不适，我们往往倾向于消除拉绳的一方。

Could never do this without your help. Thank you. So last episode, we talked about Sarta's idea that at the foundation of who we are, there's a constant tug of war that's going on between what he calls our facticity and our transcendence. Our facticity being the facts that are true about us at any given moment, and our transcendence being the possibilities that we have at our disposal. Last episode, what followed from this if you're Sartre, is that people are made massively uncomfortable by this constant tug of war that's going on, and we all tend to gravitate towards removing one side of the people pulling on the rope.

我们要么想忽略关于自己的事实，要么忽视拥有的可能性，好让一方直接掉进泥坑，我们就不用再拉这根愚蠢的绳子了。但萨特会说，不幸的是，这场游戏从未真正结束。尽管你可能认为自己是一个已完成的项目，但事实上，通过你的行动，你在每一刻都在不断创造和重塑自己。每一秒过去，你都在以某种微小方式改变。我们所有人都存在于这种张力之中，这场‘事实性’与‘超越性’二元对立的拉锯战里。

We either wanna ignore the facts that are true about us or the possibilities that we have so that one side will just fall into the mud pit already, and we can all stop pulling on this stupid rope. But, unfortunately, Sartre would say, the game never actually ends. Despite the fact you may view yourself as some sort of completed project, the reality is that through your actions, you are constantly creating and recreating yourself in each passing moment. Every second that passes, you change in some small way. The reality is we all exist in this place of tension, this tug of war that's going on between two sides of a duality called our facticity and transcendence.

但西蒙娜·德·波伏娃将更进一步，其含义构成了她的著作《模糊性的道德》的基础。先听一下这本书开篇的第一段话，然后我们再讨论她的意图。引述：‘蒙田说，我们一生持续的工作，就是构建死亡。人类知晓并思考这种动植物仅能承受的悲剧性矛盾。由此，他的命运中引入了一个新的悖论——理性的动物，会思考的芦苇。’

But Simone de Beauvoir is gonna take that one step further, the implications of which is the basis of her book, The Ethics of Ambiguity. Just listen for a second to the very first paragraph of the book, and then we'll talk about what she's getting at. Quote, the continuous work of our life, says Montaigne, is to build death. Man knows and thinks this tragic ambivalence which the animal and plant merely undergo. A new paradox is thereby introduced into his destiny, rational animal, thinking reed.

他逃离了自己的自然状态，却未能从中解脱。他仍是这个他作为意识存在的世界的一部分。他宣称自己是纯粹的内在性，任何外在力量都无法触及，同时也体验到自己是受其他事物黑暗重压碾碎的东西。每一刻，他都能把握自己存在的非时间性真理。但在已消逝的过去与尚未到来的未来之间，他存在的这一刻什么都不是。

He escapes from his natural condition without, however, freeing himself from it. He is still a part of this world of which he is a consciousness. He asserts himself as pure internality against which no external power can take hold, and he also experiences himself as a thing crushed by the dark weight of other things. At every moment, he can grasp the nontemporal truth of his existence. But between the past which no longer is and the future which is not yet, this moment when he exists is nothing.

这种他在宇宙万物中作为主权且独特主体所独有的特权，也是他与所有同类共享的。反过来，作为他人的客体，他不过是一个依赖于集体的个体，引述结束。从这段话中你可以听出，她描述的是后来她所称的人类存在的模糊性。我们来谈谈她的意思。

This privilege, which he alone possesses, of being a sovereign and unique subject amidst a universe of objects is what he shares with all his fellow men. In turn, an object for others, he is nothing more than an individual and the collectivity upon which he depends, end quote. Now you can just hear in that passage. She's describing what she's later gonna go on to call the ambiguity of human existence. Let's talk about what she means by that.

她会说，没错，萨特。在任何特定时刻，我们既是事实性也是超越性。这是我们存在的二元性。正如上期讨论的，当你诚实地审视‘成为我’意味着什么时，我是我所是，但同时在某种奇怪的意义上，我也是我尚未成为的。如果有人问你，那你究竟真正是哪一个？

She'd say, sure, Sartre. At any given moment, we are both facticity and transcendence. It's a duality that we exist within. Like we talked about last episode, when you take an honest look at what it is to be me, I am what I am, but simultaneously, I also am what I am not yet in a weird way. And if somebody asked you, so which one are you really?

你是当下既定事实的集合，还是你正在创造的所有可能性？这个问题可能令人困惑，因为答案是——我两者皆是。是的。人们常陷入自欺，试图抹去其中一面，但现实是我同时是事实性与超越性的存在，这种双重性让我产生某种张力。但西蒙娜·德·波伏娃会指出，当你细察人类存在时，会发现我们参与的远不止一场简单的拔河游戏。

Are you the facts about who you are right now, or are you all the possibilities you're bringing about? That'd be kind of a confusing question because the answer is I'm both. Yes. People commonly fall into bad faith and try to remove one side of it, but the reality is I am both facticity and transcendent simultaneously, and that reality creates a certain tension for me. But Simone de Beauvoir would point out that when you take a closer look at human existence, it starts to look like we're not just engaged in a single game of tug of war that's going on.

这不仅是事实性与超越性的对抗。我们似乎同时在进行许多场不同的拔河比赛。你看，因为我既是事实性也是超越性，但我还是什么？她会说：是无数事物。比如在任何时刻，我既是自由探索世界的主体，又是他人主观世界中的客体。

It's not just facticity and transcendence. We seem to be engaged in many different games of tug of war all at the same time. See, because, yes, I am both facticity and transcendence, but what else am I? Lots of things, she would say. For example, at any given moment, I am simultaneously both a subject navigating the world freely and an object within other people's subjective view of the world.

那么我究竟是什么？是主体还是客体？若我同时是两者，这种二元存在是否让我产生某种张力？再举一例：在任何时刻，我既是个体，又是某个集体（家庭、民族、国家、物种等）的成员。

So what am I? Am I a subject or an object? What if I'm both of them simultaneously and that existing within that duality creates a certain level of tension for me? Another example. At any given moment, I am both an individual person and a member of some collective group, family, nation, state, species, whatever.

所以我究竟是什么？是个体还是群体一员？若我同时是两者，这种二元存在是否让我产生某种张力？心灵与物质、自我与他者...这些我们栖居其中的二元性例子延展至视野尽头。波伏娃认为，纵观哲学与宗教史，许多理论都在试图消解这些二元性中的某一方，将世界简化为更明确的术语。

So what am I? Am I an individual, or am I a member of a larger group? What if I'm both simultaneously and that existing within that duality creates a certain level of tension for me? Mind and matter, self and other, the examples of these dualities that we exist between go on over the horizon. And Simone de Beauvoir would say that when you look back at the history of philosophy and religion, so many of the ideas that have been laid out over the years have been people trying to reduce one side of these dualities so that we can simplify the world down into terms that are less ambiguous.

为了逃避人类存世的真实模糊性——无论是将世界视为缺陷形式的尘世投影，将自我视为栖居大脑的心灵或寄居身体的灵魂，还是视为国家中需超越个人欲望履行义务的成员——波伏娃指出，这些都在试图过度简化人类处境，逃避存在的真实模糊性。《模糊性的道德》充满令人难忘的经典论述。关于这点，她说：「当今仍有许多学说选择遮蔽复杂情境中令人不安的面向，但这种欺骗终是徒劳。怯懦不会得偿所愿。」

To escape the true reality of the ambiguity of being a human in this world, whether it was to think of the world as merely an earthly shadow of flawed forms, whether it was to think of ourselves as a mind perched up within a brain or a a soul inhabiting a body, or as a member of a state with a duty to fulfill to the state that transcends your individual desires. Within each and every one of these and many more, you can see what Simone de Beauvoir says is an attempt to oversimplify our human condition and escape the true ambiguity of existence. The ethics of ambiguity are just filled with iconic quotes that are unforgettable. About this point, she says, quote, at the present time, there still exist many doctrines which choose to leave in the shadows certain troubling aspects of a too complex situation, but their attempt to lie to us is in vain. Cowardice does not pay.

「那些试图引诱我们的理性形而上学、安慰性伦理，只会加剧我们承受的混乱。」细品这句话：『那些试图引诱我们的理性形而上学、安慰性伦理』——这写作功力！简直是向历代哲学家与神学家开火。

Those reasonable metaphysics, those consoling ethics with which they'd like to entice us only accentuate the disorder from which we suffer, end quote. Just listen to that quote. Those reasonable metaphysics, those consoling ethics with which they'd like to entice us. I mean, that's just great writing. And and shots fired at philosophers and theologians throughout history.

波伏娃指出，他们与陷入自欺的常人无异：通过消解事实性与超越性的某一面来逃避张力状态，这与常人何异？不，诚实地为人就意味着处于张力之中，处于模糊性之中。

Simone de Beauvoir is saying, they start to look guilty of what your average person does when they fall into bad faith. How is what they're doing any different than reducing one side of your facticity and transcendence to try to escape a state of tension? No. To be an honest human being is to be in a state of tension. It's to be in a state of ambiguity.

西蒙娜·德·波伏娃指出，我们感受到这种模糊性的影响，而历史上我们的本能反应总是觉得有所缺失。她说我们意识到自身的不足——这个词很关键。我们感到某种空缺，于是采取的策略是：只要我们能找到完美的哲学解释来让自己觉得完全理解了世界，这种模糊性就会消失。那样我们作为人就完整了。

Simone de Beauvoir is saying, we feel the effects of this ambiguity, and our knee jerk response throughout history has been to feel like something's missing. She says we recognize a lack in ourselves. Important word there. We feel like something's missing, and our strategy has been that if only we can come up with the right philosophical rationalization to make us feel like we understand the world perfectly, then the ambiguity is gonna go away. Then we're gonna be complete as people.

我们将填补那份缺失。但波伏娃在此提出的问题是：如果人类注定永远无法达到完整呢？如果那份空缺永远无法填补呢？无论你编织何种故事来逃避模糊性，如果事情并非像'我是纯粹灵魂'、'我是纯粹能量'或'我是纯粹美国人'那么简单呢？如果作为人类的存在本就不是非黑即白的呢？

We're gonna fill that lack. What Simone de Beauvoir is asking here is what if we're never meant to be completed as people? What if we're never meant to fill that lack? And then no matter what story you decide to tell yourself to run from the ambiguity, what if it's just not as simple as I am purely a spirit, or I'm pure energy, or purely an American? What if the world what if being a human being is not black and white like that?

如果它同时是黑色、白色与灰色，而我们故意透过狭隘视角观察，使其显得比实际更简单呢？如果有人停止逃避这种模糊性并坦然接受，会发生什么？这样的人会是什么模样？你能在这种模糊性中获得幸福吗？我们是否拥有任何合理基础来决定如何在模糊性中采取最佳行为？

What if it's black, white, and gray simultaneously, and that we purposefully look at it through a very small lens to make us feel like it's more simple than it really is? What would happen if somebody stopped running from this ambiguity and just embraced it? What would that person look like? Could you ever be happy living within that ambiguity? Is there any reasonable foundation we can have to decide how to best behave within that ambiguity?

这就是《模糊性的道德》要探讨的课题。作为像波伏娃这样撰写存在主义伦理学著作的学者，必然要回应某些经典问题。其中之一是：如果存在先于本质，如果创造自身价值观和生命意义是个体的责任，那么凭什么说我的价值观比他人更正确或更错误？比如某人得出'强奸谋杀是善行'的价值观，若我不诉诸善恶标准，若存在确实先于本质，我如何能断言那种世界观是错误的？为回答这个问题，波伏娃将引用萨特在《存在与虚无》中的名言。

This is the task of the ethics of ambiguity. Now if you're gonna be an existentialist writing an approach to ethics like Simone Bavoir is, there are gonna be certain classic questions that arise that you'll have to address at some point. One of them is that if existence precedes essence, if it is the job of the individual to create their own values and meaning to life, how can anyone ever say that the values I arrive at are any less or more valid than anyone else's? What I mean is if someone arrived at a set of values that said, you know, raping and murdering people is a good thing, if I'm not appealing to some standard of good and evil behavior, if existence truly precedes essence, how can I ever say that that worldview was wrong? Well, to begin answering this question, Simone de Beauvoir is gonna cite a famous line that Sartre writes in being and nothingness.

这个观点是'人注定是自由的'。她的逻辑是：即使宇宙中没有客观的善恶标准，人类处境中仍有某些根本特质需要我们在生活决策中考虑。我们注定要呼吸，注定要觅食，注定要关闭手机上的已读回执。

It's the idea that man is condemned to be free. Where she's going with this is that even if there's no objective good and evil written into the universe, that doesn't mean there's not certain fundamental aspects about the human condition that we have to consider when navigating our lives. We are condemned to breathe. We are condemned to forge for food. We are condemned to turn read receipts off on our cell phones.

但她认为最重要的是：我们注定自由。未经我们同意，就被判处在必须不断做出选择的人生中。她指出，即便你否认这个现实，即便你虚度光阴陷入'自欺'状态，选择不作为本身仍是你的主动选择。我们'被判自由'的事实——我们可以做出几乎任何选择——正是让我们能创造生命意义的根基。换言之，我们讨论的'本质'最终依赖于人类处境中更根本的自由特性。

But she'd say more important than any of those things is that we are condemned to be free. We are condemned without our prior consent to a life where we have to be constantly making choices. She points out how even if you try to deny this reality, even if you just sit around and fall into bad faith and do nothing with your whole life, the choice to do nothing is still a choice you're making. The fact that we're condemned to freedom, the fact that we can make practically any choice we want, is the very thing that allows us to create the meaning to our lives. In other words, this essence that we're talking about ultimately relies on this more fundamental aspect of the human condition that we are free.

波伏娃认为，若仔细审视这种自由，会发现某些本质（如强奸谋杀）根本自相矛盾。因为道德观念本身就依赖于人类至少能在两种选项间自由选择。如果某人确实无力控制自身行为，整个道德概念就会瓦解。例如当你在海滩失去对滑板的控制，它即将滑落栈桥坠海，而站在栈桥边的朋友只需伸脚就能阻止——

And if you examine this freedom closely, she thinks that there are certain essences, like raping and murdering people, that are just flat out contradictory to arrive at. See, because the very idea of morality relies on the fact that people are free enough to choose between at least two different alternatives. Right? I mean, if somebody was truly powerless over acting in a particular way, the whole concept of morality evaporates. For example, if you were down at the beach and you lost control of your skateboard and it's rolling towards the edge of the boardwalk about to go under the ocean and you have a friend near the edge of the boardwalk, and they could easily put their foot out and stop the skateboard from going over.

但假设他们确实这么做了。假设他们看着你，看着那块滑板，双手撑膝微笑着目送滑板坠入大海。你可能会质疑他们的行为。现在想象同样的场景，但这次失控的是你的18轮大卡车。你大概不会纳闷他们为何不像超人般飞身挡车。

But let's say they did. Let's say they look at you, they look at the skateboard, hands on their knees smiling as they stare at the skateboard plummeting into the ocean. You might call their behavior into question there. Now imagine the same situation, but this time you lost control of your 18 wheeler semi truck. You're probably not gonna wonder why they didn't dive in front of it like they're Superman.

他们无能为力。那种情况下他们束手无策。这个例子说明，我们对道德义务的理解与特定情境中的自由程度直接相关。正如西蒙娜·德·波伏娃所言：你不会向神明传授伦理，也不会教导那些自认永不犯错之人，或是那些认定自己无力抉择之人。

They were powerless. There was nothing they could do about it in that situation. This is an example of how the whole idea of what we're morally obligated to do is directly connected to the amount of freedom we have in a given situation. Or as Simone de Beauvoir puts it, you don't offer an ethics to a god. You don't offer ethics to someone who thinks they can't make mistakes, or on the other hand, somebody who thinks they're so powerless they can't make choices.

所幸现实中我们两者都不是。只是人们总自我设限。既然关于道德责任与伦理的讨论最终取决于自由程度，波伏娃认为，任何关于道德义务的严肃探讨，至少必须从我们与生俱来的自由这一基本状态出发——我们注定自由。换言之，正如我们不应逃避生存的模糊性而否认二元对立中的某一面，我们也不应否认'注定自由'的事实。

Good news for us is, in actuality, we are neither of these things. People just tell themselves they are. And because this whole discussion of ethics and what we're morally accountable for is ultimately contingent upon our level of freedom, it follows to Simone de Beauvoir that any serious discussion about what we're morally accountable to do, at the very least, needs to begin from a place that maximizes that default state that we were born into, condemn to be free. In other words, in the same way we shouldn't deny one side of these dualities we exist between in an attempt to run from the ambiguity of existence, we shouldn't deny that we are condemned to be free. No.

我们应当认识到自由的本质是存在的根基，拥抱它，并朝着拓展自由而非逃避自由的方向行动。她伦理体系中极具独创性的延伸观点（下集将详述）是：真正实现波伏娃所说的自由最大化，必须同时最大化他人的自由。因为诸多原因，唯有周围人都获得彻底自由时，你才可能真正自由。这将是《模糊伦理学》第三部分的主题，而目前我们讨论的只是第一部分内容。

We should recognize that the fundamental aspect of our being is that we are free, embrace it, and then move in the direction of behaviors that maximize that freedom rather than run from it. Now the extension of this and one of the highly unique aspects of her ethics, we're gonna talk a lot more about next episode, is that to truly maximize your freedom to Simone de Beauvoir requires the maximization of the freedom of others. That for many reasons, you can't really be totally free unless if other people around you are totally free. Again, we're gonna talk all about it next episode because that's the third and final part of the ethics of ambiguity. And what we've been talking about so far is what she lays out in part one.

那么第二部分讨论什么？我想简要谈谈本书结构。她的布局堪称精妙——多年前初读时我尚未完全领会。第一部分阐述生存的模糊性与自由最大化理论。

So what does that leave us with? Part two. I guess I wanna talk briefly about how this book is structured. Pretty brilliant what she does, and I didn't really realize exactly what she was doing when I first read it years ago, but it's worth mentioning. So part one lays out this whole idea of the ambiguity of existence and the maximization of freedom.

第三部分指导实践中的具体行为准则。而第二部分看似游离主线，像在点名批评某些不够自由之人。但其精妙之处在于，她预见了那些自以为参透其思想的读者。她预见到有人会说：'模糊性？波伏娃女士，我早就参透了！我早就接受生存的模糊性了！童年时便深知自己多么自由。有时过于聪慧自由，周遭无人理解，难免寂寞啊。'

Part three lays out how we should actually be behaving in practice. And part two can sort of read like a tangential aside where she just wants to put certain people on blast for not being free enough. But the genius of what she's doing in part two is that she foresees all the people coming along reading her work mistakenly thinking that they have it all figured out. She foresees people saying stuff like, oh, ambiguity? Oh, yeah.

我比周围所有人都自由得多，有时候会觉得有点孤独呢。

Way ahead of you, miss Des Beauvoir. Way ahead of you. Long ago, I accepted the ambiguity of my existence. And even longer before that, when I was but a child, I realized how free I am. Sometimes it gets a little lonely, you know, being so smart, being so much more free than everyone else around me.

但这就是第二部分的精彩之处。西蒙娜·德·波伏娃列举了大约12种她观察到的不同人格类型，这些类型至今仍随处可见。有的非常简单，有的则非常微妙，但都是人们用来说服自己已经自由、实则可能获得更大自由的策略实例。不仅如此，西蒙娜·德·波伏娃认为，所有这些对待生活的不同态度，都是我们对童年时期首次面对现实时的反应——即成年后所需承担的真正自由与责任。

But this is what's so awesome about part two. Simone de Beauvoir lays out, like, 12 different personality types of people that she sees all around her. Personalities that you still see everywhere in today's world. Some very simple, some very nuanced, but all of which are examples of tactics people use to convince themselves they're free when they actually could be much more free. Not only that, though, when you look at these types of people she talks about, Simone de Beauvoir thinks that all these different approaches to looking at life are reactions to when we were children, the reactions to when we were first faced with the reality, the true freedom and responsibility that's required of us in adulthood.

我们以这些方式作出反应。她说童年时会发生两件事：第一，我们出生后将成年人视为权威信息来源，认为他们掌握了生命的终极价值，我们需要效仿他们。我们视其为完整个体，就像之前讨论的，仿佛他们已填补了自身缺失。

We reacted in these ways. She says two things happen when we're kids. One, we're born, and we look at adults as these authoritative sources of information. People that have grasped the ultimate values in life, and we need to be more like them. We see them as these completed people, these people that have figured out what's lacking, like we talked about before, and have completed themselves.

但如果现实中我们永远无法完成自我呢？那他们又在做什么？第二件事是：整个童年时期，你都生活在无需应对存在模糊性的状态中。父母为你隔绝了这种模糊性，你只需奔跑玩耍、做个孩子。换言之，波伏娃认为人生前十六年左右，你甚至意识不到存在的模糊性。

But, again, what if in reality, we never complete ourselves? What are they doing then? The second thing that happens is that throughout the entire time you're a kid, you live in a state of never having to deal with the ambiguity of existence. Your parents protect you from that, and what you end up doing is just running around, playing, and being a kid. So in other words, what Simone de Beauvoir is saying is that for the first sixteen years of your life or so, you don't even know about the ambiguity of existence.

你根本不知道生活本质上是这种持续紧张的状态。最近有听众发邮件问我：为什么我们总倾向于沉溺于自欺而非拥抱自由？但这能怪人们吗？成年后的自由与责任如同冰冷的现实迎面痛击，而环顾四周，可供效仿的榜样全都宣称自己已参透人生真谛。

You don't even know about this constant state of tension that life truly is. There's people that have emailed me recently and asked, why do you think we have such a tendency to gravitate towards bad faith as opposed to embracing our freedom? Well, how can you blame people? You're smacked in the face by the cold hard reality of the freedom and responsibility of being an adult. And when you look around you at the role models you have at your disposal, they're all people that claim to have this whole life thing figured out.

这些人全都在使用她所讨论的某种策略，说服自己已完成自我塑造。就像尼采在《查拉图斯特拉如是说》中提出的骆驼-狮子-孩子三阶段进化论，波伏娃在第二部分同样以进阶结构排列这些人格类型——从最不自由到最自由的渐进过程。其中最不自由者，自由度的最底层，被她称为‘次人’。比如整天在赛百味做三明治的员工。

They're all people using one of these strategies she talks about, convincing themselves that they've completed themselves. Now kinda like Nietzsche and the whole camel lion and child progression he lays out in thus books Zarathustra, Simone de Beauvoir structures all these different types of people in part two in a similar sort of way where there's a progression. It's a progression from the least free to the most free. Now the least free person out there, the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of freedom is what Simone de Beauvoir calls the subman. The subman is that guy working at Subway making sandwiches all day.

波伏娃说：真是个失败者——开个玩笑。此处的‘sub’意为‘低于’。她描述这类人对万事万物始终持冷漠态度。

What a loser, says Simone de Beauvoir. Just kidding. Different kind of sub sub meaning below in this case. Right? Simone de Beauvoir describes this as the kind of person that's sort of apathetic about everything all the time.

她引用道，这些人觉得‘没有事物值得渴望或努力’，一切都很乏味，没有什么真正令人印象深刻。他们看到别人的成就时，总是耸耸肩——就这样。

She says they feel, quote, like nothing merits desire or effort, end quote, that everything's dull. Nothing's really that impressive ever. They see things other people do. They they shrug a lot. Okay.

西蒙娜·德·波伏娃指出，这本质上是一个孩子目睹了成年后等待他们的巨大自由。他们看到了毕生可从事的无数可能事业，却因这种前景感到极度不适。为缓解不安并重返童年那个安全、毫无歧义的茧房，他们选择退缩并自我封闭。

Nothing really is worth their time. Simone de Beauvoir says that what this is is a child that saw just how much freedom adulthood had in store for them. They saw the sheer number of possible projects they could work on throughout their life. They felt really uncomfortable considering that prospect. Then in an attempt to ease their discomfort and return back to that safe, completely unambiguous cocoon of childhood, they sort of retreated and closed themselves off from the world.

兴趣广泛且能力出众者更容易沦为'次等人'。因为他们面对诸多可能性时会说：'天啊，我什么都能做——可以当兽医、新闻主播，也能成为科学家。'

People with a lot of different interests and a lot of capability are at a higher risk for becoming a subman. Reason being because they look at all the possibilities and say, man, I could do anything. I I I could be a veterinarian. I I could be a news anchor. I could be a scientist.

波伏娃认为，这类人通过否定内心需要行动填补的张力与缺失，以'选择不作为'来完成自我实现。而社会层面上，这种'无为选择'的可怕之处在于——他们终将成为暴民群体的潜在成员。

Man, you know what? Who cares about any of it? Forget it all. They deny that there's any sort of tension or lack within themselves that requires action, and they complete themselves by choosing nothing, Des Beauvoir says. And the problem with somebody choosing nothing on a social level is that what they become are potential members of a mob.

只要他人能说服'次等人'暂时为其事业壮胆，这些人就会变成可随意塑造的炮灰，也就是俗称的'绵羊'。在这人格阶梯的第二层级，比'次等人'稍自由却仍深陷存在焦虑逃避中的，是她所称的'严肃人'——约占人口70%，是最普遍的逃避存在模糊性的策略。

They become malleable fodder for whatever projects the other people are working on as long as those people can persuade the submen to be temporarily emboldened by whatever cause they give them to support. Submen's often referred to as what people call a sheep. The second rung on this ladder of types of people, little more free than the subman, but still deeply enslaved and running from the ambiguity of existence, is what she calls the serious man. The serious man makes up probably around 70% of people. This is by far the most common tactic people use to remove themselves from ambiguity.

'严肃人'很常见：任何为事业否定超越性、将自我彻底事实化的存在形态。这类人成年后面对自由时会宣称：'我是终身民主党人''我如父母般掌握了终极价值完成自我'，或'我是福音派基督徒至死方休'。

The serious man is something familiar. It's it's any version of somebody that denies their transcendence and turns himself into pure facticity for the sake of a cause. This is the child that faced the freedom of adulthood, and they're all grown up now saying something like, I am a lifelong Democrat, and I'm always gonna be a Democrat. I have harnessed the ultimate values of life and completed myself just like my parents did. Or I am an evangelical Christian, and I will be that until the day I die.

波伏娃强调，关键不在于这些身份本身的对错，而在于你与这些标签的关系——你是否把'民主党人'或'基督徒'身份视为不可更改的本质属性？

I have discovered a set of absolute values about the world. Make no mistake. Simone de Beauvoir is not saying that being any of these things is wrong. It's your relationship to how you view the title. Do you live your life as though being a Democrat or being a Christian is some sort of permanent and irreversible aspect of who you are?

若如此，波伏娃会判定你是个试图赋予自我本质、逃避生命真实模糊性的'严肃人'。只需回望二十世纪，就不难发现当人们自以为掌握终极价值时常常引发的血腥。而在这人格阶梯的更上层，存在着对成年自由另一种经典回应方式。

If so, then Simone de Beauvoir would say that you are a serious man trying to give yourself an essence and escape the true ambiguity of your life. And if you look back at history, even just to the twentieth century, you don't gotta look very long to see the bloodshed that often comes when people think they've harnessed an ultimate set of values. That's what Simone de Beauvoir is worried about here. Now another important rung on this ladder, little higher up the ladder, is a response to the freedom of adulthood that's a true classic at this point. We've all heard of this one before.

我要谈谈虚无主义。先快速回顾一下目前的内容。次等人要么意识不到自身存在的缺失，要么彻底否认这种缺失的概念。严肃之人承认缺失的存在，并相信某种能完善自我的叙事。而虚无主义者既认识到缺失，也明白没有任何事物能填补它。

I'm talking about nihilism. Quick recap of the latter up until this point. The subman either doesn't realize there's a lack in their being or denies the whole idea of there being something lacking within them. The serious man acknowledges that there's a lack and then believes a story about something that will complete him as a person. And the nihilist realizes there's a lack and that nothing can complete them.

于是他们自问：何必做任何事？一切都没有意义。在波伏娃看来，陷入虚无主义是极其危险的。因为虚无主义者部分正确——他们触及了存在模糊性的真相，但在得出这个结论后，他们做出了一个重大假设，这使他们忽视了关于存在的完整真相。

So they ask themselves the question, why bother doing anything at all? Nothing has any meaning. Now nihilism is a particularly dangerous place to be if you're Simone de Beauvoir. And the reason why is because the nihilist is partially right. They've arrived at the truth when it comes to the ambiguity of existence, but they're making a big assumption after arriving at that conclusion that blinds them from the fact that they aren't seeing the whole truth about existence.

这种危险在于人们很容易陷入这个陷阱，并用已掌握的局部真理作为依据来说服自己是对的。现在我想读一段《模糊性的道德》中的文字，波伏娃在此阐释了虚无主义者的错误。坦白说，我把这段话裱在客厅里——这是存在主义著作中我最爱的段落之一。

And it's dangerous because it's a very easy trap to fall into and then convince yourself that you're right, citing that piece of truth you've accessed as justification. So I wanna read you a passage. It's a passage out of the ethics of ambiguity where Simone de Beauvoir is talking about why the nihilist is wrong. Now full disclosure, I have this passage hanging in the front room of my house. It's one of my favorite passages of all time from existentialism.

我们先读这段，再讨论其含义。引文开始：'虚无主义态度揭示了某种真相。这种态度让人体验到人类境况的模糊性。但错误在于它将人定义为存在核心的缺失，而非将缺失视为存在的积极表现。事实上存在本身并非缺失。若自由在此仅以拒绝的形式被体验，那它并未真正实现。'

We'll read it, and then we'll talk about what she means by it. Quote, the nihilist attitude manifests a certain truth. In this attitude, one experiences the ambiguity of the human condition. But the mistake is that it defines man not as a positive existence of a lack, but as a lack at the heart of existence, whereas the truth is that existence is not a lack as such. And if freedom is experienced in this case in the form of rejection, it is not genuinely fulfilled.

'否定主义者正确认识到世界没有既定意义，他自己也什么都不是，但他忘了正是要靠自己来为世界赋予意义，使自身有效存在。他没有将死亡整合进生命，反而视其为生命的唯一真相，于是生命在他眼中成了伪装下的死亡。然而生命确实存在，虚无主义者也知道自己活着——这正是他的失败之处。他否定存在却无法消除存在。'

Denialist is right in thinking that the world possesses no justification and that he himself is nothing, but he forgets that it is up to him to justify the world and make himself exist validly. Instead of integrating death into life, he sees in it the only truth of the life, which appears to him as a disguised death. However, there is life, and the nihilist knows that he is alive. That's where his failure lies. He rejects existence without managing to eliminate it.

'他否认自身超越性的意义，却仍在自我超越。享受自由者能在虚无主义者中找到盟友，因为他们共同质疑严肃世界。但自由者也视其为敌人，因为虚无主义是对世界和人类的系统性否定。若这种否定最终演变为积极的毁灭欲望，就会建立自由必须反抗的暴政。'引文结束。解读这段话的起点或许是：若非虚无主义者部分正确并认识到事物的真实模糊性，他们与严肃之人将毫无区别。

He denies any meaning to his transcendence, and yet he transcends himself. The man who delights in freedom can find an ally in the nihilist because they contest the serious world together. But he also sees in him an enemy insofar as the nihilist is a systematic rejection of the world and man. And if this rejection ends up in a positive desire destruction, it then establishes a tyranny which freedom must stand up against, end quote. So I guess a good place to start unpacking that is to say that if it weren't for the nihilist being partially right and recognizing the true ambiguity of things, they would be no different than the serious man.

就像严肃之人可能会说：'我是摩门教徒，我拥有宇宙注定的终极价值，我是完整的。'虚无主义者也在做同样性质的宣言：'我的生命没有宇宙赋予的意义，我是完整的。'

Because just like the serious man who might say something like, you know, okay. I am a Mormon, and I possess certain ultimate values that are written into the cosmos. I am complete. A nihilist is making the same kind of proclamation by saying, there is no cosmically written meaning to my life. I am complete.

换句话说，为什么我们俩都代表宇宙发言？至少摩门教徒相信是神明赋予他们这些信息。虚无主义者又基于什么？就凭我作为人类在这个模糊世界里的直觉感受吗？听着。

In other words, why are we both speaking on behalf of the universe here? I mean, at least the Mormon believes in a god that gave them this information. What is the nihilist based on? The the the way it intuitively seems to me as a human being in this ambiguous world? Look.

我这么说并非因为存在某种宇宙注定的意义。关键在于，这种虚无主义的期待从何而来？很多人认为这是我们上次讨论过的那种观念的延续——代代人总觉得自己诞生在一个本不属于他们的领域。这个宇宙是私有财产。

I'm not saying this because there is some cosmically written meaning necessarily. The point is, where did this expectation of the nihilist come from? A lot of people think it's another one of those things we talked about last time. It's an extension of generation after generation of people thinking of themselves as something born into a realm that doesn't belong to them. This universe is private property.

上帝建造了这个地方。他赐予你生命的礼物。只要你在此停留，他就有些杂活要你干。当虚无主义者意识到这种思维方式是过时遗迹时，他们错误地推断：既然没有神明赋予意义，那么我所做的一切必然毫无意义。但如果那种被赋予现成人生意义的幻想从来就不成立呢？

God built this place. He's bestowed upon you the gift of life. And as long as you're staying around here, there's some chores he wants you to do. When the nihilist realizes that this way of thinking is a relic of a bygone era, they mistakenly assume that because there's no god out there to confer a meaning onto them, that, therefore, there must be no meaning to anything that I do. But what if that whole dream of being handed some prepackaged meaning to your life was never how it worked at all?

如果那只是个假设呢？意义究竟是什么？它是人类构建的概念，是个词汇。如果就像你必须选择职业和人生伴侣那样——

What if that was an assumption? What is meaning anyway? It's it's a human construct. It's a word. What if the same way you have to choose a career and the same way you have to choose a life partner?

这些事都需要多年思考才能领悟——如果选择人生意义也是你的责任呢？我的意思是，如果你的人生确实存在意义呢？我可不是在扮演深夜电视布道者，明白吗？

And these things take years of thought to fully realize. What if it's your responsibility to choose a meaning to your life? What I'm saying is what if there is a meaning to your life? And and I'm not saying that like I'm some late night pastor. Alright?

西蒙娜·德·波伏娃会追问：当你宣称'我的人生和所作所为毫无意义'时——就像你刚才那样——你其实已经定义了人生意义：你要整天宣扬宇宙层面无意义的论调（天才啊），然后以此为借口永不采取行动。在波伏娃看来，你无法避免拥有某种人生意义。

What Simone de Beauvoir would ask is that what if when you make a grandiose proclamation like, there's no meaning to my life or anything that I ever do? I mean, you just did it, like, right there. You just declared the meaning of your life to be. You're gonna sit around making proclamations about how nothing really matters on a cosmic level, genius of you, and then you're gonna use that as justification to never take action on anything. You can't help but have a meaning to your life to Simone de Beauvoir.

它由你每时每刻的行动不断创造和重塑。问题在于：你的人生意义将是什么？是瘫在沙发上虚度光阴？还是超越自我——辞去榨干生命的工作，周游世界，帮助他人获得最大自由，至少先踏出家门？知道吗？我的人生意义就是让八个月未见阳光的皮肤感受地狱之火的灼烧。

It is created and recreated by your actions in each passing moment. The question is, what's the meaning of your life gonna be? To sit around on the couch doing nothing or to transcend, to get out of that job that sucks the life out of you, or to travel the world, or to help maximize the freedom of others, to leave the house at least. You know? My meaning is to feel the fires of hell on my skin as sunlight hits it for the first time in eight months.

你的意义将是什么？下次，我们将更详细地讨论这些阶梯的层级，更多关于孩子们如何应对成年生活中所需的惊人自由与责任的方式，以及最大化他人自由的重要性，为什么只有当我们周围的人自由时，我们才能真正自由，还有在服务他人的生活中所蕴含的智慧。你知道，每当我读这本书，尤其是《模糊伦理学》的第三部分，开始对在这种悲惨存在中找到服务他人的方式的重要性感到兴奋时，它总是讽刺性地让我想起我墙上罗宾德拉纳特·泰戈尔的另一句引语，他指出了在生活中服务他人的重要性。今天我就用这句话来结束。引语：'我睡了，梦见生活是欢乐。'

What is your meaning gonna be? Next time, we'll talk more about these rungs of the ladder, more of these types of ways children respond to the startling level of freedom and responsibility required in adulthood, as well as the importance of maximizing the freedom of others, why we can never be truly free unless if others are free around us, and the wisdom that lies in living a life in the service of others. You know, whenever I read this book, whenever I read part three in particular of the ethics of ambiguity and I start getting all excited about the importance of finding a way to serve others in this miserable existence, it always brings me back to ironically another quote that I have on my wall by Robin Dranath Tagore, where he points out the importance of serving others in your life. I'll leave you today with it. Quote, I slept and dreamt that life was joy.

我醒来，看见生活是服务。我行动，看哪，服务就是欢乐。感谢聆听。下次再聊。

I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. Thank you for listening. I'll talk to you next time.