322 | 菲利普·佩蒂特论语言、能动性、政治与自由

大家好，欢迎收听《心灵景观》播客。我是主持人肖恩·卡罗尔。我们人类总爱自诩为理性生物，尽管心知肚明自己并非时刻理性。

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. We human beings like to flatter ourselves perhaps by thinking of ourselves as rational creatures. We all know that we're not always rational.

有个理性主义者的小圈子总试图说服我们变得更理性。经济学界一直在争论行为主体究竟有多理性，是否该考虑非理性因素，或是直接扩展理性概念的适用范围等等。但人类区别于其他动物乃至生物的特质在于理性——这个古老自负始终存在。'人是理性动物'这句反映亚里士多德思想的名言（虽然原话并非出自他本人，但核心理念相近）已成为某种流行口号。

There's a whole little subculture of rationalists trying to convince us to become more rational. There are debates in economics about how rational actors really are and whether or not we can take irrationality into account or whether or not we should just generalize our notion of rationality, etcetera. But it's an old conceit that what distinguishes human beings from other kinds of animals or even other living beings is our rationality. There's a a motto that man is a rational animal that is supposed to reflect an Aristotelian way of thinking. Aristotle himself didn't say quite those words, but he basically said things like that And it became kind of a catchphrase.

对吧？其他动物或许也有简单思维，能解决些小难题。但真正称得上理性的只有我们人类。即便承认所有例外与非理性现象，这种视角仍将聚光灯打在我们的大脑——至少是内心世界上。对吗？

Right? You know, other animals, there's a little bit of thinking involved, you know, some puzzle solving here and there. But we human beings, we're really the rational ones. One thing that follows from this perspective, even if you understand all the caveats and all the irrationalities, etcetera, it kind of puts the spotlight on our brains or at least our inner thoughts. Right?

无论是否理性，人类终归要思考、要变位（语法意义上的），然后走向世界。我们要与环境互动，与他人交往，应对各种社交情境等等。

We human beings think whether it's rational or not, but, you know, we conjugate, etcetera. And then we go out into the world. Right? We interact with our environment. We interact with other people and social situations, etcetera.

这个隐含假设值得质疑。今天的嘉宾菲利普·佩蒂特是普林斯顿大学和澳大利亚国立大学的杰出哲学家，他学术生涯的重要主题就是颠覆这个假设——主张应该先观察社会世界，先研究人类互动方式，再探讨思维、推理及理性如何从中产生。他的新书《人类灵魂的社会谱系》正是探讨：人类如何通过语言和思维构建能力，以及这些能力与社会生活的关联。

And that's a hidden assumption that is worth interrogating. Today's guest, Philip Pettit, is a distinguished philosopher, one of our most distinguished living philosophers at Princeton University and also Australian National University, so he splits his time. And one of his themes throughout his work is sort of inverting that hidden assumption to say, you know, let's first think about the social world. Let's first think about how human beings interact with each other, and then ask how our thinking, how our reasoning, how our congitation, our rationality arises out of that. He has a new book on exactly this theme called When A Social Genealogy of the Human Soul, where he goes through, you know, what human beings have the capacity to do using language and thinking and how all of that relates to our social lives.

这比人类学家的研究范畴更广（我们很尊重人类学）。作为哲学家，菲利普将其与能动性、责任、自由意志乃至道德伦理和政治联系起来——事实上他作为政治哲学家的影响力最为深远，虽然研究范围极其广泛。

And it's a little bit more than what an anthropologist, would do. We love the anthropologists here. Nothing against them. But as a philosopher, Philip relates it to things like agency and responsibility and free will and even all the way up to morality and ethics and politics. Indeed, it says a political philosopher that I think that, Philip Editas made his biggest impact over the years, although he's very wide ranging, doing a lot of things.

本期播客我们将明确展现这条脉络：从'人类是为更好社交而发展理性能力的社会动物'这一理念，延伸到政治组织形态、自由真谛、如何构建自由概念，乃至社会秩序的实际影响。这正是哲学应有的样子。菲利普开篇提到（我深表认同），当今哲学家总固守某个细分领域是种遗憾——这种现象岂止哲学界？物理、生物等领域的学者也常困在重复性研究中。

So we do take the opportunity here in the podcast to make that connection very, very explicit going from this idea of imagining human beings as social animals who developed rational capacities to be better social animals, to use language for that purpose, and then extend it to what that means for political organization, what freedom means, how we should construe the notion of liberty, and even some quite practical implications for how to order our society. So to me, it's how it's what philosophy should be. We do Philip does say at the beginning, and I'm very sympathetic to it, that it's a shame that more philosophers these days pick a lane and stick to it, right, and do their little, disciplinary thing. It doesn't need to just philosophers. People in physics or biology, all kinds of academics are often most comfortable doing a certain kind of research over and over again.

但哲学尤其鼓励你成为比这更全面的思考者，对吧？从逻辑学到伦理学再到美学，跨越界限。而菲利普多年来正是以令人钦佩的方式做到了这一点。所以我认为这是一次与伟大哲学家的精彩对话。

But philosophy in particular invites you to be a bit more generalist than that. Right? To cross over from logic to ethics to aesthetics. And and that's exactly what Philip has done in a very admirable way over the years. So I think this is a a good conversation with a great philosopher.

希望你喜欢。我们开始吧。菲利普·佩蒂特，欢迎来到Winescape播客。

I hope you enjoy it. Let's go. Philip Pettid, welcome to the Winescape Podcast.

非常感谢。很高兴来到这里。

Thank you very much. Glad to be here.

我想请教，对于一个有着漫长哲学生涯的人来说（如果这么说合适的话），有些哲学家有明确的研究项目，对吧？他们毕生的工作围绕一系列主题展开。你会这样看待自己吗？

I'd like to ask for, you know, someone who's been a philosopher for, let let's say a long career, if that's okay. You know, some philosophers have projects. Right? Their life's work sort of coheres into, a set of themes. Would you would you think of yourself that way?

比如，你是否一直致力于某个贯穿始终的核心课题？

Like, do you have an overarching project you've been engaged in all this time?

嗯，我确实这样看待自己，尽管这可能是一种虚假的自我认知。我们都知道人会为自己构建叙事。我最初是在神学院接触哲学，作为受过天主教培训的准牧师。大二时发现了哲学并为之着迷，特别是开始阅读让-保罗·萨特的作品。

Well, I think of myself that way, though it may be it may be as false self image. We all know that we tell narratives about ourselves. I began in philosophy as a seminarian and a Catholic trained as a priest. And I discovered philosophy in my second year, and I fell in love with the idea. And in particular, I started reading Jean Paul Sartre.

好的。

Okay.

萨特最棒的地方在于，当时我觉得他提供了一个关于人类生活和经验的整体视角，还延伸到了小说、戏剧等领域。这种以核心主张为中心的观点让我几乎为之陶醉——那种统一性。某种程度上，我认为它满足了一种宗教般的渴望，你知道的，就是对整体观的渴求。

And the great thing about Sartre is I felt at the time was here was an overall view of human life and human experience and also branching into novels and these plays and so on. And with a core claim at the centralist view. And I found that almost intoxicating. Just the unity of it. I suppose in a way it was answering to a religious urge, you know, to want an overall view.

我发现哲学最激动人心的是你可以提出自己的问题。能与学科历史对话，能与各种学科及当代世界互动，并真正尽力寻找自己的答案。从一个更教条化的背景走出来后，这对我来说简直是令人陶醉的体验，就像...

And I found it so exciting that in philosophy you could ask your own questions. Could, you know, interact with the history of the subject. You could interact with a whole range of disciplines and the contemporary world and really do your very best to come up with your own answers. And, you know, having come out of a more doctrinaire background, that to me was, you know, heady stuff. It was like Yeah.

就像第一次发现酒精那样。但恐怕我贪杯了，深陷其中。多年来，我可能确实不太典型——或者说，是我们这代人的典型代表？我们这代人正逐渐退出舞台，仍把哲学视为本质上通才的领域。比如年轻时，最优秀的哲学家会涉猎所有领域，因为他们需要教授一定范围内的所有内容。

Discovering your first alcohol or whatever. And I'm afraid I drank the alcohol and got sucked into it. And over the years, I suppose I have been a bit on typical, Well, maybe typical of my generation, which is now aging out, so to speak, in the sense of thinking of philosophy as a essentially a generalist project. You know? When I was younger, for example, the best people in philosophy, wrote about everything mainly because they had to teach everything within a certain range.

从伦理学、心灵哲学到形而上学、哲学史。而如今哲学系往往更加细分。在我看来这多少有些遗憾。哲学的乐趣之一正是能获得某种'空白支票'，自由穿梭于各个领域之间。

I mean, from ethics to philosophy of mind to metaphysics to history of philosophy. Whereas nowadays, philosophy departments tend to be more more compartmentalized. Right. And that that's it seems to me that's a bit of a pity. I mean, one of the the the the delights of philosophy for me is precisely that you get a a carte blanche, as if were, to wander across a whole range of areas.

这些年来我发现，当你在不同领域间游走时，会识别出某些关键的智力主题——它们在不同领域都重要且富有成效。你可以使用相同的'工具'，或者说是构建模块，来搭建不同的思想大厦。所以我非常享受作为通才的体验。如果对某个领域厌倦了，随时可以转向别处。

And what I found over the years myself, I mean, I'm in health amidst others, but that as you move from area to area, you discovered there are keys, are intellectual sorts of motifs that are important and profitable in different areas. You can use the same tools. You know, it's not so much tools as building blocks, you know, fit in building different sorts of edifices as it were. And so I really enjoyed being a generalist. And if you get bored with any one area, you can also move always move elsewhere.

我觉得这点可能会吸引你，考虑到你广泛的兴趣范围——这对科学家来说确实非比寻常。

Now I suspect this may appeal to you given a look at your the range of your interest, which, is certainly untypical for a scientist.

这确实解释了我为何要做一档不仅采访物理学家的播客。这是与各领域杰出思想家实时交流的绝佳方式，在过去那个年代根本无法实现。

Well, it certainly explains why I'm doing a podcast where I talk to people who are not just physicists. It's a great way to, you know, interact live in a in a way that just couldn't have been done back in the day with, you know, great thinkers in all sorts of fields.

当然。是的。

Absolutely. Yes.

好吧。尽管通才...我是说，有些主题会反复出现，对吧？我觉得试图用我的话来概括你的事业会显得我很蠢，但你其实是想理解人类如何在充满复杂性、组织、国家与法律的世界中，既作为理性生物又作为社会生物运作的。这样说可以吗？

But okay. But despite the the generalist, I mean, there are themes that come up over and over again. Right? I mean, it seems to me I'm gonna make myself look foolish by trying to put your career into my words, but you're trying to understand how human beings function as sort of both rational and social creatures in a world full of complexity and organizations and and nations and and laws. Is that okay?

我做得怎么样？

How do I do?

是的。我会强调社会性。我认为如果说我的思想中有个重要主题，那就是我们本质上是如此社会化的生物。这在某种程度上是老生常谈了，从亚里士多德时代就存在这种观点——人是政治动物，社会动物。

Yes. I would emphasize the social. I mean, I think that if there's any theme that bulks large in my own thinking, it's that we are essentially such social creatures. Now in a way, that's a platitude. Know, it's been there since Aristotle, the zoo.

我们就是这样的存在。我认为这个观点可以比常规思考更深入。我最近刚完成的《当心灵忏悔时》一书提出：我们所谓的心理活动，本质上是对最初作为社会实践习得的活动的内化。我们把心智视为首要，社会生活为次要，但实际上心智是通过社会生活表达的。

I mean, political the political animal, the social animal. That's what we are. I think that that can be taken deeper than it normally is in ordinary thinking. And a recent book that I've just done called When Minds Confessed is an argument that essentially what we think of as mental activity is the internalization of an activity we learn in the first place as a social practice, as the social activity. I think of our minds, which we think of as primary and then social life as secondary with our minds being expressed in social life.

我认为我们是逐渐被引入社会生活的。我们在对话交流、自我认知、承诺与守诺、问责他人的实践中获得信心，而我们的精神生活正是这些实践的内化。在那本书里，我选取了六种人类能力，论证了为何每种能力都可视为社交技能的内化——即社交能力的运用。当然这都很抽象，所以也许...

I think we're inducted into social life. We gain confidence in the practices of conversation exchange, making sense of ourselves, making promises, keeping our promises, holding another responsible, and that our mental life is really, the internalization of that. So in that particular book, I take six human capacities, and I provide an argument for why we might think of these in each case as the internalization of a social skill, the skill and the exercise of a social capacity. I mean, that's all very abstract. So maybe

哦，我们该进入...我应该...

Oh, we'll get into I should

给你举些例子。

give you some examples.

例子。是的。但我想我确实想讨论这个话题。这让我想起——让我这么说吧。你刚刚阐述的这种观点，即社会因素塑造我们的内心精神生活，是多年前我绝不会轻易认同的，但我现在逐渐接受了这种观点。

Examples. Yeah. But I guess I I do wanna get on the table. It does remind me let let me put it this way. This whole point of view that you just articulated of the social sort of shaping our interior mental lives is not one that I would have given much credence to years ago, but I'm I'm coming around to this point of view.

部分原因是我在播客中与雨果·梅西耶的对话，他曾在...

And in part because, of a conversation I had on the podcast with Hugo Mercier, who's who's worked in

这本书。对，对。他与丹·斯帕伯共事过，我很熟悉。是的。

this book. Yes. Yes. Who's worked with Dan Sparber, I know quite well. Yes.

没错。想到...

Exactly. Thinking of

《理性的运用》这本书里提到的，实际上。对。

reasons with, actually, in this book. Yeah.

是的。理性主要是服务于社会功能的。而你的书似乎，你知道，从多个方向拓展了这一主题。不仅是理性，还包括人性的诸多方面，以及我们所认为的推理、理性等，都源自这些社会力量和社会冲动。

Yeah. Reasons as as a of primarily serving a social function. And and your your book seemed to be, you know, sort of building on that theme in multiple directions. It's not just reasons, but lots of aspects of of humanity and and what we think of as reasoning, rationality, or whatever as coming out of these social forces, social impulses.

是的，我认为这是个公正的评价。虽然我所做的更多是从哲学角度出发

Yes. That that's a fair comment, I think. Although what I do is done in more philosophical key

嗯，好的。是的。

Well, good. Yes.

比起雨果或丹的作品。

Than Hugo's work or or Dan's.

其实，这正是我想首先讨论的另一件事。你知道，我们正在谈论的这本书很快就会出版，我猜是吧？具体什么时候出版？我其实不太清楚。

Well, that was the other thing I wanted to to start with. You know, you you're you're this book that we're talking about, which will be coming out pretty soon, I I take it. Will when it will be coming out? I don't actually know.

它已经出版了。实际上刚刚面世。

It's already come out. It's just appeared, actually.

太棒了。好的。希望这期播客能帮你提升销量呢。嗯哼。

The best. Okay. Good. We'll we'll hope to get a bump in your sales from the podcast episode then. Uh-huh.

我是说，你在探讨一个著名问题：究竟是什么让人类与众不同，与其他地球物种区别开来。这是个充满陷阱的问题，对吧？它很重要，但也容易犯错。而你主要是从哲学视角切入这个问题的。

I mean, you're you're tackling a famous question of what makes human beings special, different from other species here on Earth. That's a fraught question to ask. Right? It's an important one, but it's also easy to make mistakes. And you're coming at it from a primarily philosophical point of view.

那么，你是怎么防范讲述那些可能被未来动物学研究等发现推翻的故事的呢？

So, like, how did you how do you guard against, sort of telling stories that couldn't that that would be overturned by future discoveries in the study of animals and so forth?

哦，其实他的观点完全没有被推翻。你知道吗？关键在于为对话提供某种有价值的输入，推动事情发展。相比无人问津的可能性——这在这里绝对是存在的——我更乐意看到自己的观点先被关注再被推翻。某种程度上，这本书对当代哲学家而言非常不寻常，毕竟如今哲学往往更趋向专业化。

Oh, well, none of his mind is being overturned. You know? The main thing is to made some sort of input to the conversation, you know, that may help things along. And I'd be I'd be much happier with the thought that what I've got to say might be paid some attention, but and then overturned than with the possibility that no one pays any attention whatsoever, which is decidedly a possibility here. I mean, in a way, the book is it's a very unusual book for a philosopher to write these days where philosophy tends to be more specialized in any case.

有时候我觉得，只有站在职业年龄的边缘才敢如此大胆甚至鲁莽地写这本书。生命短暂啊。我就是想尝试一下。尽管可能遭到各种反对或挑刺，但至少这是在尝试理解我们的社会性、心智能力，以及与其他物种的区别。

And, you know, I sort of feel sometimes I can only have the courage or the boldness, the recklessness to write it because of being being on the outer edge, so to speak, age wise of the profession. I mean, I sort of feel that, you know, life is short. Yeah. And I wanted to give this a go. And, it may be found objectionable or faulty in all sorts of ways by other people, but, you know, it's at least, it's it's giving a shot at making sense of our social nature and connecting with our mental capacity and, as you say, with our difference from other species.

你确实一针见血地指出了语言能力作为万物起源的关键作用。那么你如何看待语言这种超级重要的角色？

And you certainly put a finger on our capacity for language as something that gives rise to everything else. So what what do you how do you perceive this role of language as being super important?

关于语言起源这个热议话题，我并没有特别新颖的见解。不过在书的第一章我提出：不必将语言的出现视为完全神秘的现象，因为语言结合了两种不同的交流系统特性。比如我们知道黑猩猩等类人猿确实能交流——哲学家保罗·格赖斯在五十年代就精辟论述过：沟通的本质在于寻求特定回应，你只需让对方明白你想要什么回应。

Well, I don't see anything, at least anything interesting on the origin of language, which is, of course, much debated question. Other than arguing in the first chapter of the book that we don't have to think of the emergence of a language as entirely mysterious because language, as we use it, combines, I think, two different aspects, so to speak, of communication systems. On the one hand, we know that, other great apes, for example, chimpanzees, can actually communicate in a sense that Paul Grice, a well known philosopher, explicated better than anybody else, I think, in the, well, going back to the fifties. What he argued was that in communication, the distinctive thing is that you seek a certain effect, a certain response in particular in other people, in other conspecifics. And you seek them to provide that response simply by making clear to them what the response it is that you're seeking.

哦，明白了。

Oh, okay.

你不是机械地操控对方作出回应，而是让对方理解你的需求后自主回应。比如在针对黑猩猩的助人实验中：假设两只相邻笼子的黑猩猩隔着高栏，其中一只想够到水果但需要长棍，它发现自己笼子里的棍子太短，但看到隔壁笼子有足够长的棍子。

You don't engineer them into giving the response. You just let them see what you want and you rely on them to provide in response to their recognizing what you want to actually deliver the goods. So, for example, in targeted help scenarios with chimpanzees, what's been found is roughly speaking the following, that you've got two chimps, let's suppose, in, cages side by side separated by a relatively high barrier. And one chimp, let's call him chimp one, wants to reach some fruit but needs a long stick. And the sticks in his or her in its cage are too short, but it sees a stick in the nearby chimp's cage that is long enough.

它够不到那个东西，距离太远了。但它所做的就是吸引另一只黑猩猩的注意力，让它注意到自己的动作，然后试图去够那根棍子。虽然明显没有成功的把握，但这样就能清楚地让另一只黑猩猩明白它想要的是那根棍子。而另一只黑猩猩在大多数情况下——实际上我认为高达90%的概率——能识别出第一只黑猩猩的意图，并理解它想要的回应。

And it can't reach that. It's too far away. But what it does is draw the attention of the other chimp to what it's doing and then reaches for the stick, you know Mhmm. Obviously, with no help of success, but thereby clearly making clear to the other chimp that what it wants is to get the stick. And the other chimp, in most cases, I think it goes up to 90%, actually, on recognizing what the first chimp is seeking, recognize the response it wants.

它通过把棍子递给第一只黑猩猩来作出回应。我认为这是种非凡的成就，属于格赖斯式的交流方式。第一只黑猩猩通过向同伴展示自己的目标来获取棍子，而另一只黑猩猩则提供了所需之物。这就是交流能力的核心。

It delivers that response by giving the stick to the to the first chimp. Now I think that's that's an extraordinary sort of achievement, and that is Gricean style communication. The first chimp is seeking an end to get the stick by just revealing to the other chimp what end it is that he's seeking. And the other chimp then delivers the goods. That's the core of communicative capacity.

就我们目前所知，黑猩猩会用手势来实现这种目的，比如伸手够东西，但它们不具备离散的信息承载符号。

Now chimps, so far as we can see, use gestures for this purpose, like the reaching for, but they don't have available to them as were discrete information bearing signs.

没错。

Right.

但我们知道其他动物确实会使用信息承载符号，尽管它们并非出于交流意图。我在书中引用的典型案例来自两位著名进化生物学家钱尼夫妇对肯尼亚长尾黑颚猴的研究。他们发现当地黑猩猩面临三大主要威胁：草丛中的蛇、狮子（毕竟是在肯尼亚）以及空中的老鹰。黑猩猩似乎天生就会根据遇到的是蛇、老鹰还是狮子发出不同叫声——虽然这点存在争议。关键在于，其他黑猩猩听到叫声后能获取信息：附近有狮子、蛇或老鹰。

But we know that other animals, for example, do have a use of information bearing signs, though they don't use them with the intention of communicating. So a standard example that I use in the book is from the study of vervet monkeys in Kenya by two well known evolution biologists, Chaney and Chaney And what they discovered was that the chimps in that area, there are three main dangers that they face from snakes in the grass, from lions, it is in Kenya, and from eagles in the sky. And they do and it seems to come to them by nature. It's not a learned, although that's debated, response to make a noise in response to whether it's a snake or an eagle or a lion. And the thing is that other chimps who hear that noise, it gives them information that there's a lion around or a or a snake or an eagle.

这种信息传递体现在它们对声音的反应就像亲眼看到老鹰或听到狮吼一样。它们不会机械地做出固定行为，而是采取恰当措施躲避威胁。比如在草丛中听到蛇的警报会立刻爬树，在树上听到鹰叫则会往低处躲而不是高处。

And it does that in the sense that they respond to the sound as if they'd seen the eagle or heard the the lion or whatever. So they basically they don't just respond with a routine piece of behavior as in always do x, whatever that might be. Their response is appropriate to avoid the lion of the snake. So if they're in the grass and they hear a snake call, they go straight for the tree. If they're in the tree and they hear an eagle call, they make sure they go lower in the tree rather than higher in the tree.

本质上它们是在传递信息，但证据表明它们并非有意为之。它们发出的声音更多是自发产生的。

So, basically, what they're doing is they're giving another information. But the evidence is they're not intending to give another information. The sign, the sound they make comes more or less spontaneously.

好的。

Okay.

它确实提供了信息。我认为一种非常简单的语言会涉及使用类似黑猩猩那种具有交流目的的狂热符号。我们都知道语言在人类进化史的某个阶段出现了。我在书中只是说，我们不必将其视为一种神圣的奥秘，因为一个物种将这两种不同能力结合起来并没有什么特别神秘之处。这就是拥有简单语言的含义。

And it does give the information. Now I say what I think of as a very simple language would involve the use of signs of the fervent kind through a communicative purpose like that of the chimpanzees. Now, I think that we all know language evolved at some point in hominin history. And all I say about it in the book is that we needn't treat it as, so to speak, a divine mystery that language appeared amongst our kind because there's nothing entirely mysterious about the fact that a species might unite these two different capacities. And, that's what having a simple language would be.

我在书中提出的观点是——抱歉说得有点长——大致来说，这本书的计划是描述一类我称为'类人生物'的物种，他们在非语言相关方面与人类非常相似。然后通过思想实验来推测，探索这些生物突然获得使用语言能力会产生什么影响，这种简单语言涉及使用承载信息的符号来实现交流目的。

And then what I argue in the the way the the book sorry to go on at length, but roughly speaking, the plan of the book then is to characterize a set of creatures, I call them humanoids, who are pretty well like human beings on the basis of no bad human beings in language independent ways. And then to imagine what the effect would be, it's a thought experiment, to speculate about, to explore what the effect would be on these creatures of being able to use suddenly language, of having a simple language that involves the use of information bearing signs to a communicative purpose.

很好。这听起来确实是个典型的哲学实践。你不是在野外做实验，也不是在非洲。你是在进行思想实验：如果赋予类人生物这些新能力，他们会怎么做？

Good. And that does sound like a quintessentially philosophical exercise. You're not, doing an experiment out there in the wild. You're not in Africa. You're asking yourself the thought experiment, what would the humanoids do if they were given these new capacities?

那么告诉我，他们会怎么做？他们会开始表现出什么行为？

So so tell me, what would they do? How would they be start behaving?

约翰，首先我想说，思想实验这个概念并非哲学家首创。就以你熟悉的领域为例，想想爱因斯坦关于加速度与重力等效原理的思想实验——那个关于在电梯里的著名设想。你能分辨出自己是在下降还是...抱歉。

Well, can I just say first, John, I mean, the idea of the Gedanken experiment, the thought experiment, is not the invention of philosophers? After all, just to go to your area, think of Einstein on the equivalence principle, you know, between acceleration and gravity. And, you know, you were invited to that thought experiment of being on the lift. You know? And would you be able to detect the fact that you're actually going down or the fact that sorry.

是在上升，还是实际上静止但受到重力作用。

The fact that you're going up or the fact that you're actually static but subject to gravity.

爱因斯坦某种程度上也算是个哲学家，对吧？除了

Einstein was kind of a philosopher, though. Right? In addition to

哦，好吧。不过想想伽利略，还有那个关于轻重物体以相同速度下落的思维实验。你想象两块砖头，然后用一根线把它们连起来。再想象这根线变硬，将两块砖固定在一起。然后你问别人：现在你觉得它们下落的速度会比单块砖快，还是比用线连着的砖快？

Oh, well, okay. But, you know, think about Galileo, you know, and the thought experiment that made sense to the fact that things light and heavy will fall at the same rate. You imagine two bricks, and then you imagine they're connected with the thread. And then you imagine the thread becoming solid, connected to two grids. And you ask the person, well, now do you think they'd fall more quickly than the individual bricks or than the bricks connect by the thread?

当然，所有人都会说不会。对吧？

And, of course, everyone says, no. They wouldn't. You know?

对。

Right.

这就是个思维实验。好吧。所以这个思维实验就是要问：类人生物会如何应对这项新技术，就像你在第一章描述的那样。我把这些类人生物刻画得非常像人类，方方面面都像。在描述它们的本质时，我某种程度上借鉴了心理学和进化生物学等等。

That's a thought experiment. Yeah. Okay. So the thought experiment is just to ask, how would the humanoids respond to this new technology, as you might say, this new way of now in characterizing the first chapter, the nature of humanoids, I make them out to be very like human beings in being in all sorts of ways. And I draw to an extent on psychology and evolutionary biology and so on in in characterizing our our the nature of these humanoids.

但有一点是，它们是个极度自立的物种。这个物种的个体要么孤独死去，要么共同生存。明白吗？它们必须团结一致。

But one thing is they're deeply self reliant species. They're species such that they they die alone. They or they survive together. You know? They've just got to hang together.

现在第一个论点是：有了语言技术，它们就能互相传递关于环境的信息。通过扩大信息池，它们就能互惠互利。不仅如此，它们每个人都有充分理由保持...姑且说是诚实

Now but the first argument is that with the technology of language available, it would make possible for them the communication of information about their environment to one another. And they will thereby benefit one another by increasing the pool of information. And not only that, but they'd each have very good reason to be, well, let's say, truthful

嗯。

Mhmm.

而且能力出众，在撰写报告和使用符号时都格外谨慎。比如有代表狮子的符号，有代表斑马的符号。他们只在真正有狮子出现时才会使用狮子符号。因为如果他们对别人不可靠，就很难指望别人对他们可靠。

And competent, careful in making a report, in using a sign. You know, let's say there's a sign for lion. There's a sign for zebra. In using the lion's sign when there really is a lion there and only when there's a lion there. Because if they're not reliable with other people, they can hardly expect other people to be reliable with them.

进化生物学中有个众所周知的'以牙还牙'机制对吧？这解释了为什么他们不仅会用这些符号传递信息，还会可靠地使用它们。他们通过这种方式互惠互利。可以将其视为不同生物之间的信息交换社会行为。你可以想象这种行为的进化完全源于外部实践，就像长尾黑颚猴互相传递信息一样，只不过他们是像黑猩猩交流那样有意识地传递信息。

There's a tit for tat mechanism well known in evolutionary biology Right. That would explain why not only would they use these science to communicate information, but they would use them reliably to communicate information. And they they benefit one another in that way. Think of that as a social practice of information giving as between different creatures. And you can imagine that evolving as a purely external sort of practice that they benefit to another in, a bit like the vervet monkeys who are giving information to another except they're giving information intentionally in the sense of the the chimps' communication.

我在书中提出的第一个观点是——当然这只是推测——他们很快就会发现（这种情况极有可能，几乎不需要奇迹），无论环境如何，他们不仅从获取信息中受益，也从向他人提供信息中获益。假设我的观察位置比你高，我会看到什么动物差异呢？

And then what I argue, just to give you this first sort of, rung on the ladder that I characterize in the book, is that what they'd quickly discover of course, this is just speculation. What I say is this would be very likely, robustly likely, as in it wouldn't take a miracle for them to discover. Regardless of how things were, they'd be likely to discover that actually they themselves benefit from giving information to others as well as benefiting from the information they get. Because you ask me, let's suppose I'm in a higher level than you. What's that animal in the difference?

你使用一个承载信息的符号——比如斑马线或其他什么——以疑问的方式指向动物，我认为他们完全能理解这种操作。这会促使我想要回答你。如果我能抬头望向你所指的方向，以我的高度或视力看到那是头狮子，我就会回答'狮子'。

You use a you use an information bearing sign, line, zebra, or whatever, just animal in an interrogative mode, which I argued perfectly intelligible that they should do that. And and that prompts me now to want to give you an answer. Right? And if I can see, I can lift my head and look in the distance about the part where you asked, the place you asked about, And I can see at my height or with my vision that it's a lion. I'm going to say lion in response.

我给了你信息。你原本不知道那是什么动物，现在知道是狮子了，最好赶紧躲起来什么的。但我也给了自己信息，因为这个我刻意做出的动作——可能是抬头、转身、凝视——在向你传递信息的同时，

And I've given you information. You didn't know what the animal was. You now know it's a lion. You better take cover or whatever. But I've also given myself information because by means of this intentional action I've taken, maybe raising my head, turning, and looking, sharpening my eyes, I have given you information.

我也给了自己信息，因为我可能之前没注意到那个动物。现在如果确认是狮子，我就知道了。所以我既从接收信息中受益，也从提供信息中受益。因此我认为这在类人生物中极有可能普遍存在——他们懂得如何向他人提问。

But I've also given myself information because I may not have noticed the animal before. And I now know if indeed is aligned. So I benefit from giving as well as receiving information. But now so I argue it robustly likely amongst the humanoids. They know how to ask questions of others.

他们懂得如何回答他人的问题。我是说，在有证据的情况下。但他们也知道回答问题对自己有益。那么，为何不向自己提问呢？为何不把自己当作对话者，刻意去解答问题从而增加自己的信息呢？

They know how to answer the questions of others. I mean, when the evidence is available. But they and they know that they benefit from answering questions. Well, why shouldn't they ask questions of themselves? And why shouldn't they treat themselves as an interlocutor and make intentional efforts to answer that question and thereby increase their own information?

可以说他们同时扮演着指导者、信息提供者和信息接收者的角色。所以我就在想，比如有只动物，那是什么？你知道吗？然后我努力说出：哦，是斑马。

So they are at once the instructor and the the informant and the informed, so to speak. And so I wonder, you know, there's an animal. What is it? You know? And I make an effort to say, oh, it's a zebra.

明白吗？假设我随后放松下来。那么我做了什么？我其实是在自言自语。我可能大声说出来了，但当然，如果我习惯用语言思考，也可以不发出声音。

You know? And and so I relax, let's suppose. Well, what have I done? I've I've been talking to myself as it were. I may have done it out loud, but of course, I could do it without actually speaking the words if I'm in the habit of using the words.

现在我要说的是：看啊，到了这个阶段，难道人形生物不该发展出我们通常认为的思维能力吗？比如刻意集中注意力——在这里表现为眯起眼睛或提升思考层次等——这种旨在获取信息、扩展认知范围的刻意行为，实际上非常接近我们所说的'下定决心'式的思考。就像罗丹的《思想者》那样简单的模式，你看他手托下巴沉思的样子。当然，我们自己也会这样做。

And what I say is now, look, at this point, wouldn't the humanoids have developed a capacity very likely we tend to think of as thinking? As in making an intentional effort, in this case, screwing up your eyes or going to a higher level, etcetera. An intentional effort that is designed to provide you with information to increase your domain of beliefs. And that actually is very close to what we think of as trying to make up your mind as thinking in that sense as in a very, so to speak, simple mode, the sort of thing that Le Poncer, Rodin's Le Poncer does, you know, as you see him with his hand on on his elbows, you know, meditating on something. Well, of course, we do that ourselves, you know.

于是我停下来想：昨天见到的是谁？我认出了那张脸，然后你知道，这一切都需要刻意努力。这纯粹是心智活动，通过回忆来增加我的信息储备以形成认知。我认为这就是思考的本质。而我非常确信——不止是猜测——动物不会做这种事。

So I stop and I think, who was that I saw yesterday? I recognize the face and then I you know, that's all sort of make intentional effort. Now it's purely mental activity here and remembering in order to increase my information, my body of information in order to form a belief. I say that's that's really what thinking is. And my own hunch, it's really more than a hunch, is that animals don't do that sort of thing.

就像加里·拉尔森漫画里的狗，它们可能把脑袋搭在爪子上，看起来像是在思考什么。但实际上它们就像普通苹果相较于伟大的鸡蛋（注：此处原文比喻需保留原意），根本不会表现出这种迹象。当然它们的认知会不断更新。

Right. You know, like in Gary Larson cartoons, dogs may put their head on their paws, to speak, and be be seen as wondering about this or that. But actually, of course, are very simple apples comparatively with the great eggs. But they don't show any signs of doing that. Of course, their beliefs update all the time.

你看，当狗四处奔跑发现兔子时，它会形成认知。但它不会为了形成认知而刻意去做些什么——这才是我所说的思考。这正是人形生物在掌握最简单语言后就会具备的能力。现在回到我们最初的主题，肖恩，我曾说过我认为心智活动是社会化的内化过程——这些人形生物发展出的社会行为正是刻意回答他人问题的实践，很可能还包括相关技能的培养。

Know, as the dog runs around, know, sees the rabbit or whatever, it forms a belief. But it doesn't make an intentional effort, you know, to do something with a view to forming a belief. And that's what I call thinking. And that's what the humanoids would do as the result of coming to even a very simple language. So if I can just now comment on the general theme we began with, Sean, I said that I tend to think of mental activity as the internalization of social Well, here you've had amongst the humanoids the development of a social practice of making intentional effort to answer the questions of others, presumably the development of the skill in this practice.

例如，学会最好说实话，学会最好谨慎行事，否则未来可能被视为告密者而被忽视。这就是'以牙还牙'的机制。然后，可以说，将自己视为对话者，向自己提问并通过有意识地努力回答这些问题。这实际上是将向他人提问并回答问题的社会实践内化的过程。你只是独自完成了这个过程。

For example, learning that you better tell the truth, learning that you better be careful or to be ignored as an informant in the future. That's the tit for tat mechanism. And then, so to speak, treating themselves as an interlocutor in asking themselves questions and then seeking by making intentional efforts to answer those questions. So that is actually internalizing the social practice of raising questions for others and answering the questions. You do it simply with yourself.

而且你完全有理由这样做，因为你会从中受益。你具备实现它的手段——语言技术。现在你也有了这样做的动机——增加你的知识储备。因此我认为，这至少在一定程度上解释了思维在我们这类生物中可能如何演化。

And there's every reason why you should do it because you're going to benefit from it. You've got the means of doing it. The technology is language. And now you've got the you've got the the motive to do it as well, which is you increase your body of information. So I say that at least go some way to making sense of a way in which thinking might have evolved in our kind.

我并不是说它是通过思想实验的方式演化的（这种方式在各方面都过于简化），但这种思考可能告诉我们关于思维本质的一些信息。

I don't say it evolved in the, as it were, thought experiment fashion, which is simplified in all sorts of ways, but that may tell us something about what thinking is.

我对此并不十分了解，但听起来关于语言与思维关系已有大量研究和推测。语言塑造思维，语言的发展可能反过来影响进化生物学和大脑结构等。但似乎主要集中在技术层面——一旦我们能对概念进行符号化操作，这就塑造了我们的思维。而你更侧重揭示动机层面的因素。

And I I'm not super educated about this, but it sounds like, I mean, there's been plenty of work done on the relationship or plenty of speculation anyway in the relationship between language and thought. Right? Language shapes thought, language the development of language, had probably feedback on evolutionary biology and the shape of the brain and things like that. But it's it seems that it's mostly on that technology side. You know, once we have symbolic manipulation of ideas that that shapes our thinking, and you're placing shedding light more putting the spotlight more on the incentive side, the motivation side.

这不只是我们具备符号化操作某些符号的能力，而是在这种社会情境中，我们有动机开始进行我们认为是思考的活动。

Like, it it's not just that we have the ability to symbolically manipulate some symbols. It's that, in this social context, we are incentivized to start doing something we recognize as thinking.

标准观点在哲学史上影响深远，笛卡尔可以说是这种观点的代表人物。这种我认为是'由内而外'的语言观认为，思维是我们与生俱来的能力，然后我们发现言语是外化思想并与他人交流的方式。可以说，内在先于外在。

The standard view, and it's, you know, it's got a strong presence in the history of philosophy, Descartes being the the sort of supreme figure figurehead or exemplar of this way of this view, is that it's what I think of as a an inside out view of of language that we have thinking as a capacity that comes to us by nature, by first nature as it were. Mhmm. And then we discover speech as a way of externalizing our thought and communicating our thoughts Exactly. To one another. So so to speak, the inside comes first.

这是由内而外的观点。而我想论证的是'由外而内'的心智观——外在先于内在，语言先于思维，思维实际上是将最初属于社会实践的技能内化的结果。这是非常不同的观点，认为语言不仅是工具性或表达性的（虽然它确实兼具这些功能）。

It's inside out, and then the outside comes second. What I wanna say, argue for is an outside in view of the mind, that the outside comes first, the language comes first, and that thinking is really the internalization of a practice and a skill that in the first place is social. And it's so it's a very different view. It's a it's a view that language isn't just useful instrumentally or expressively, whatever. Of course, it is all of that.

但这也具有构成性的重要意义。它构成了我们称之为思考的能力。当然，有人会说动物也会思考。确实，在某种意义上的思考，动物确实会思考。但正如我所说，至少就我所知的动物而言——我不是动物行为学家，但我必须说我对动物行为学非常感兴趣，尤其是对类人猿的行为学。

But that it's also constitutively important. It's constitutes that capacity we think of as thinking. Now, of course, some is gonna say, animals think. Well, of course, there's a sense of the word think which animals certainly do think. But as I say, animals and the animals I know at any rate, I'm not an ethologist, but I am very interested, I must say, in in the ethology, especially of of the great apes.

它们确实会不断更新自己的信念。但我认为证据表明，这种更新更多是自主或无意识地进行的，就像常说的那样。它们并非刻意去更新信念，而是信念随着环境、新刺激等自然更新。而我此刻使用的‘思考’一词，指的是真正包含有意识努力的行为，比如勒庞·塞拉的思考努力，或是努力回忆昨天见到的那个人是谁，或是眯起眼睛问远处那是什么动物。

They certainly update their beliefs all the time. But I think that is done the evidence is, I think, that that is done more or less autonomically or, you know, subpersonally as is often put. They don't make an effort to update their beliefs. The beliefs just update in response to the environment, The new stimuli and so on are coming their way. Whereas thinking in the sense in which I'm using the word now is where it really involves an intentional effort to do something, like the effort of Le Pen Serra or the effort of just trying to remember who was that person I saw yesterday or screwing up your eyes and saying, what is that animal in in the in the distance?

正是这种有意识进行的努力，在证据可得的情况下，能够带来回报——即实际增加信息量，而这正是我们所有人行动时所必需的。

It's the effort of that kind intentionally conducted which has the payoff if the evidence is available to you and of actually yielding an increased body of information, which is what we all need, of course, in order to act in the world.

显然，关于这一点有太多可说的、可想的，但时间有限，我想跳到一些后续的更宏大的观点上。你在书中不仅讨论了独立思考及其与语言的关系，还将其与能动性、道德以及成为负责任的人的意义联系起来。这大概是你作为一位多年涉猎广泛领域的哲学家所获得的回报吧？

There's obviously so many, things to to say and think about this, but, you know, time is finite, and I wanna leap forward to some of the the bigger ideas that follow-up. I mean, you you do talk in the book about not just thinking for ourselves, and the relationship to language, but then connecting it to agency and morality and and and what it means to be a responsible person. So and that's that's probably the payoff for you of of being a well traveled philosopher in many different areas over many different years?

嗯，或许算涉猎广泛。但涉猎广泛的麻烦在于，你最终可能在每个领域都只是游客，而非本地人。我试图通过朋友们的保证来确认自己不只是所涉足领域的游客——就像写这本书时我必须做的那样。那么如何切入主题呢？书中有一章关于推理与感知，但暂且不谈这些，直接看我第四章阐述的一个发展——我称之为‘承诺能力’或‘承诺实践’的发展。

Well, maybe well traveled. The trouble of being well traveled is that you can end up being a tourist in every area and a native in none. I try to use my friends to assure me that I'm not merely a tourist in the areas where I venture in as I have to do in this book, for example. Well, how to get there? There's a chapter on reasoning and perception, but let's leave those apart for the moment and just go to a development I think I trace in chapter four, which is the development of what I call the capacity or the practice of commitment.

甚至博弈论者也会告诉你：将‘承诺一个想法’与‘报告一个想法’区分开来的好定义。如果我告诉你那边是斑马，而你说‘真的吗？’——可能你不确定别人是否骗你说是狮子，或只是怀疑我的判断力。而我想向你传达我对此非常确定，那么方法之一就是让我犯错时付出代价。比如，如果我放钱在桌上说：‘肖恩，如果我错了这钱归你。’这样你就没理由怀疑我的话了。

So even game theorists will tell you, here's a good definition of committing to a thought as distinct from reporting that something is the case, reporting a thought. If I tell you that is a zebra there and you say, is it really, you know, you're not so sure somebody else throwing you was a lion or whatever, or you're just doubtful about my capacities. And I want to communicate to you that I really am quite certain about this, then one way of doing that, of course, would be to make it costly for me to be wrong. So for example, if I say if I put money on the table and I say, Sean, you know, this money is yours if it turns out I'm wrong about this. Well, you've got no reason to trust what I say.

对吧？

Right?

嗯。

Mhmm.

但现在有一种自然的方式，类人生物——我认为人类也是如此——可以说是在传递信息时，通过减少可能的借口来增加沟通的成本。例如，当你询问我的想法时，尤其是在我们交流内心状态时。当然，能够报告内心状态意味着我们已经在这条阶梯上更进一步了。我跳过了关于推理和我称之为‘感知者’的部分。

But now there's a natural way in which the humanoids, and I think human beings do, can make their reports, so to speak, their information bearing acts of communication more costly. And that is by closing down excuses that might otherwise be available for getting things wrong. So, for example, if you ask me what do I, This is true in particular when we're communicating about the state of our own minds. And of course, to have reports about state of our minds already means we're further along that ladder. I've skipped the sections on reasoning and what I call percipients.

但如果我在交流我的想法，你可能会问我对此有何看法。比如，我是否相信特朗普会再次参选？

But if I'm communicating about my mind, you might ask me what do I believe about such and such. Do I believe that, you know, that Trump will go up for election another time?

嗯。

Mhmm.

我可能会这样回答：嗯，我想我是相信的。你知道，我的想法时有时无，但实际上，我觉得我是相信的。这种情况下，我给了你一个报告，但我在限定这个报告。但如果我想让你确信我真的相信这一点，我可以说‘不是我认为特朗普会……’，而是直接说‘特朗普会再次尝试参选’。

And I may say to you, I may report that belief by saying, well, look, I think I believe that. You know, I sort of come and go, but actually, I sort of I think I believe that. Now in that case, I've given you a report, but I'm qualifying the report. But if I want to make it absolutely sure in your mind that I really do believe this, I can say something like, not I think I believe that Trump is, but I could say Trump is going to have a go at being elected again.

是啊。

Yeah.

那么在这种情况下，我无法用‘我可能误解了自己’这样的借口来为自己开脱。比如，如果你发现我的行为表现得像相信特朗普会参加下届选举，但我却说我认为自己不相信这一点，那我只能说‘我一定是误解了自己’这样的借口。

Well, that I can't now in the case of the report, I could have excused my failure by saying to you, well, I must have gotten myself wrong. You know? I really felt if, for example, you discover I act as if I believe Trump was going to stand in the next election. But I said I thought I didn't believe that. I thought I say I must have gotten myself wrong.

但如果我说‘哎呀，他会’，我是在宣誓这个信念而非转述它。既然如此，我不能说自己肯定搞错了，因为显然当你提问时，我考虑的不是自己的想法或信念，而是事态本身。我坚持自己形成的信念——特朗普确实会参加下届选举。但让我说得更绝对些，我能做出比这坚定得多的承诺。

But if I say, gee, he will, I avow the belief as I've put it rather than reporting the belief. Well, in that case, I can't say I must have gotten myself wrong because, clearly, when you asked me the question, I wasn't thinking about my mind and what I believed. I was thinking about the state of affairs, and I was standing with the belief I formed that indeed Trump is going to stand for the next election. But let me make it stronger. I can make a commitment much more strongly than that.

比如在传达意图时，你问‘今晚去看比赛吗？’我说‘嗯，我会去的’。结果我没出现，你抱怨时我说‘听着...’

So for example, if I'm communicating an intention, you say, am I going to go to that game tonight? And I say, yeah. I'm I'll be there. And and I don't turn up and you complain. I say, well, look.

要知道，我确实发过誓也真心打算去。我没说‘我可能有这个打算’，而是说‘我会到场’，这是事实。

You know, I I did a vow and I did indeed have the attention. You know? I didn't say I think I have the intention. I said I will be there. It's true.

我发过誓，就不能用‘除非我搞错了’当借口。但我还能说‘我改主意了’，这个借口确实能用。不过也有办法堵死这个借口。

I vowed it. I can't give the excuse that unless I got myself wrong. But I can still say I changed my mind. You know, I can give that excuse. But there's a way of shutting down that excuse too.

我可以说‘相信我，我会去’，或者用我们的术语说‘我保证到场’‘我承诺到场’。这种承诺分量极重，为什么？

I can say, depend on me. I'll be there. Or I can say, using our own language, I pledge to be there or I promise to be there. Now that's a very heavy commitment. Why?

因为现在食言的代价，远比当初只是转述意图甚至简单表态要严重得多。你会说‘承诺后失信就不可靠了’。我也明白若不到场将面临重大损失。所以当我以承诺模式说‘我会去’时，你可以相信我。

Because now the expense of being wrong is really much heavier than would be had I given a report or even a mere vowel of the intention. You're gonna say, you know, I'm not gonna be trustworthy if I made a promise and I then let you down. You know? And I realize there's a big loss in store if I am wrong about being there. And so you can trust me when I say I will be there now in this pledging mode.

好了，这是背景铺垫。抱歉花了这么长时间解释。

Okay. That's background. I'm sorry for taking so long about that.

当然。非常有帮助。不。太好了。

Sure. Very helpful. No. Great.

不过好吧。如果我们——我认为我们作为人类——例如，会有强烈的动机去做出承诺和誓言，而不仅仅是相互报告自己，以获取可信度并建立与他人之间的关系，让他们现在信任我们，因为他们能看到我们是言行一致的，可以这么说。好吧。但这反过来意味着，如果我现在有点怀疑你是否会履行你的承诺，比如说。也许你向我承诺要如实讲述一个涉及我们俩的事件，这对我很重要。

But okay. If we, I argue that we are the humanoids, for example, would have strong motives to make vows and pledges as well as just reports on themselves to one another in order to elicit credibility and to build relations with others who will trust them now that they can see they're putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Okay. But that means in in turn that if I'm now I'm a little bit doubtful about whether you're going to live up to your pledge, for example. Maybe you pledged to me to tell the truth about some incident involving us both, and it's important to me.

你确实如实告诉了第三方。你确实做出了承诺，而且你会因此有所损失。但我开始担心你，因为我觉得你会受到诱惑，你知道，因为那是个尴尬的事件。你会——好吧，我可以提前告诉你，我可以现在就说，听着，肖恩，你可以说实话。你能做到的。

You do tell the truth, say, to a third party. And you've really pledged, and there will be a loss for you. But I'm beginning to worry about you, as in I think you'll be subject to temptation, you know, because it's an embarrassing incident. You're going to well, I can say to you in advance, I can say, now listen, Sean, you can tell the truth. You're up to it.

来吧。你知道的，振作起来，伙计。你知道的，你能做到。对吧？我劝你实话实说。

Come on. You know, brace yourself, man. You know, you can do it. Right? I that I exhort you to tell the truth.

现在我认为，人类通过互相提醒他们做出的承诺或如果他们未能履行承诺将面临的代价，可以学会这一点。从这个意义上说，他们可以让对方更有可能真正履行承诺。所以我相信，如果我实际上说‘你可以说实话’，如果我提前劝告你，你会更有可能说实话。好吧。所以这在我看来非常重要。但如果我真的这样提前劝告你，而实际上你还是让我失望了，我该怎么办？

Now I think that the humanoids would learn that by reminding one another of commitments they made or the costs that are in store if they fail the commitment, And they can, in that sense, make it more likely that the person will actually keep the commitment. So I make it more likely, as I believe, that you will tell the truth if I actually say, you can tell the truth if I exhort you in advance. Okay. So that's very important, it seems to me. But now if I do exhort you in advance like that, what am I going to do if actually nonetheless you let me down?

比如说，你从与第三方的会面中出来，你对我说，我说，好吧，你告诉他了吗？然后你说，哦，天哪。对不起。我没有。我最后就是没能做到。

So you come out of, say, the meeting with the third party and you said to me, and I say, okay, you told him, did you? And you say, oh, god. I'm sorry. I didn't. I just simply I I couldn't in the end.

我太尴尬了。我没有说实话。或者我该说什么？我想我会对你说，好吧，我可以放弃你。我可以说，肖恩·卡尔，你就是拿他没办法。

I was too embarrassed. I didn't tell the truth. Or what do I say? I think I'm gonna say to you, well, I could give up on you. I could, you say, Sean Karl, you just can't deal with him.

你知道，他是个积习难改的骗子。他根本不在乎，明白吗？我可以永远疏远你或与你保持距离。但那样做无异于割掉鼻子来惩罚脸，毕竟我们还要维系人际关系等等。所以我认为我很可能会做的是提醒你那些劝诫的话，对你说——不是‘你本可以这样做’因为那已是过去，而是说‘肖恩，你本可以说实话的’。

You know, he's a he's an inveterate liar. He doesn't you know? He's just I could shun you or put you at a distance forever. But that would be really cutting off my nose despite my face because, you know, we're going to bother relationships and so on. And so I think what I'm quite likely to do with you is remind you of the exhortation and say to you, not you could do this because that was in the past, but I say, Sean, you could have told the truth.

你知道，这本在你的能力范围内。现在我认为在类人群体中会很自然地出现这种情况：他们主动采取劝诫立场后，又被动地沿用这种立场，仍然视你为可劝诫对象，说‘你本可以完成那件杂事’，并且‘我没有放弃你’——这实际上等同于让你承担责任。嗯。所以现在我们正深入规范性领域。

You know, it was within your capacity. And now I think that it's going to be very natural amongst the humanoids that they adopt reactively the proactive stance of exhortation and reactively adopting that stance, treating you still as exhortable, saying you could have done a chore and I'm not giving up on you, that that actually amounts to holding you responsible. Mhmm. So now this is moving us very much into the normative domain. Right.

因此我想论证，一旦承诺作为一种实践开始运作，就会衍生出相关的劝诫实践，进而产生问责实践。但同时我要说——如果我能回到那个社会到心理的转变——我也认为类人生物会很快发现，他们实际上可以通过说‘我会做这件事’来把自己绑在桅杆上。他们可以向自己做出承诺、下决心，比如承诺在下次选举中投票，而不只是预测自己可能会投票。这就像他们对自己许下了诺言。

So I want to argue that once commitment as a practice comes on stream, you're going to get related practices of of exhortation and then of holding responsible. Right. But I also say, if I can just go back to the socio to mental move, I also argue that the humanoids would quickly discover that they actually can, as it were, bind themselves to the mast by saying, I will do this. I could making a commitment to themselves, making a resolution, let's suppose, to vote at the next election as it's saying from just predicting they probably will vote. They as if they make a promise to themselves.

这确实是一种内在的决心。之后如果他们没能做到，他们不会只是对自己说‘哦，我改变主意了’。不，他们会像责备别人那样责备自己。这正是在培养良知，不是吗？

And that is really an internal resolution. And then if they fail to do that, they don't just sort of say to themselves, oh, well, I changed my mind. No. They they berate themselves like they might berate another person. And that's developing a conscience, isn't it, after all?

明白吗？这里你正深入道德概念的核心：追究他人责任的概念，相互问责的概念，被期待接受他人问责的概念，培养承担责任的能力与资格的概念，就像通常要兑现你向他人作出的承诺那样。但你可以用所有这些方式来对待自己。我认为这标志着一个重大转变——此时你已接近成为所谓的‘人格体’。你可以鼓励自己，也可以谴责自己。

You know? And here you you're moving right into the heart of moral concepts, the concept of holding responsible other people and mutually holding others responsible, being expected to be held responsible by others, developing a capacity, a fitness to be held responsible, as in generally living up to the commitments you held to by others. But then you could do all of that with yourself. And I think this is a major sort of you become at this point, I think you close to becoming what you call a person. As you can you can encourage yourself and berate yourself.

你可以让自己恪守某个自我形象。这个形象可以说就植根于你对自己作出的那些承诺中。而那个形象，我认为，已经成为了某种类似人格的存在。这至少与规范性领域建立了一种联系。

You can hold yourself to an image of yourself. The image that, so to speak, is embedded in these commitments you make to yourself. And And that that, I think, has become something like a person. So that's at least to make one connection with the normative domain.

确实如此。不仅如此——虽然我不想对这本书轻描淡写，我知道这部著作是个宏大工程——但你在哲学领域，尤其是政治哲学方面还有其他杰出作品。我现在能看出它们之间的关联了。

Well, yeah. And not only that. I mean, I hate to give a short shrift to the the book. I know the book is a big undertaking, but you have all of these other wonderful works in philosophy, especially political philosophy. And I can kind of see how they're connected now.

对吧？我是说，一旦人类开始做出承诺，几乎可以说是在订立契约、劝诫他人，甚至惩罚他人，那么最终人们就会想要将其规范化，并思考：我们该如何以正确的方式构建社会秩序？

Right? I mean, once you start having human beings making promises, one might almost say contracts and exhorting, maybe even punishing others, at some point, one is gonna wanna formalize this and ask, okay, how should we order our society in the right way?

完全同意。对我而言，这些概念是相互关联的。当然，有可能我只是在构建一个自我满足的叙事，而非完全准确的描述。但可以确定的是，我政治思想中的核心主题最初源于多年前写的一本书，那本书某种程度上是《心灵对话》的前身，名为《共同心智》，书中也论证了语言在唤醒人类心智、使其具备意识方面的重要性。在撰写过程中，我逐渐意识到：将人类视为能够离群索居的生物是根本说不通的。

Absolutely. I mean, and for me, they are connected. Of course, there's always the possibility that I'm telling myself a narrative that is also self satisfying rather than narrative that's really accurate. But what is certainly true is this, that the distinctive sort of themes in my own political thinking came to me initially in writing a book many years ago, which was in a way an antecedent of the When Minds Converse book, which is called The Common Mind, that also argued about the importance of language in bringing people to mind, so to speak, in making them mindful, in minding them in that sense. And in developing that book, what I realized is that, it really didn't make sense to think of human beings as creatures who could ever exist in isolation, in a solitary condition.

比如你可能会提到罗宾·斯克鲁索，但那毕竟是他生命后期的状态。而传统案例中由狼群抚养、从未接触人类语言的婴儿，或是自我成长的个体——缺乏那些对应重要心智实践的社会实践引导——我开始认为这样的个体实际上无法形成人类灵魂（如果允许我这样表述），无法真正拥有人性。人性是需要通过社会进化与他人接触才能获得的。这其实是对'社会优先'心智理论更深刻的诠释，这种由外而内的理论模型让我深感兴趣。

I mean, you might have the Robin Screwtho, but that's a later period in his life, so to speak. But you begin to think that the idea of a a baby being raised or raising itself or being raised by a wolf in the tradition example, without exposure to speech, induction of the social practices that are the counterparts of the mental practices that are so important to us. I began to think such a an individual would not actually develop a human soul, if I can put it that way, would not actually come to humanity. That humanity is something that is requires that social evolution and the social contact with others. And this is a very deep a deeper version of the society first outside in theory of mind that that attracts me.

但当你从这个角度思考人际关系准则时——特别是素不相识者之间（而非亲友关系）——我们当然都认为自由是核心要素。我们都希望在与陌生人的互动中保有随心所欲的自由。可如果你认为离群索居是人类可能的状态，那么自由就变成了'尽可能接近无人阻碍的生存状态'。

Okay, but once you think in that way and then you think about, well, what are going to be the ideals, so to speak, of relating between human beings, in particular between human beings taken at random, not just friends, not just family, etc. And of course, we all think freedom is surely going to be a major sort of feature. We all want to be free in relation to random others to do our own thing or whatever. But then you ask, if you so speak thought the solitary condition was a conceivable condition for human beings, you might think, well, being free is just being as near as possible to existing in a world where there is no one else to thwart you. There is no one else to get in your way.

若你意识到这种想象完全不切实际（因为人类本质是社会性动物），就会很快得出新结论：自由本质上是与他人建立这样一种关系——他们为你保留自主空间，至少在某些选择上不横加干涉，同时你也不依赖他们的意志（或者说善意）来获得这种空间。最理想的情况是他们根本不具备干涉的权力。

But if you think that's just a totally inappropriate image because we are essentially social and then you ask what freedom is, well, you very quickly come to the idea that what to be free is basically to be related to other people, but in such a way that they give you a space of your own. You know. They don't actually get in your way in certain sorts of choices at any rate. And nor do you depend on their will, so to speak, their goodwill in order to achieve this space. They don't even the ideal would be they don't even have a power.

存在某种机制能阻止他人妨碍你。你不是任人摆布的傀儡。我逐渐将这种自由观理解为：不仅是'不被他人打扰'，更是'在人际关系中确保他人无权干涉特定选择'。后来通过历史学家昆图斯·斯金纳的研究，我了解到共和主义传统（可追溯至古罗马）的深刻见解：即便主人对你放任自流，只要存在主宰你生活的上位者，你就不算真正自由。

There there's a block to their getting in your way. You don't you're not at their mercy. You're not in their hands, so to speak. And I came to think of that as a notion of freedom as not just being let alone by others, but existing in a relationship with others as well as don't have the power of getting in your way in certain choices. And then I became aware through the work of historians, Quintus Skinner was very important to me in this respect, that actually the long way of thinking about freedom and what's often called the republican tradition, going back to republican Rome, argues that you're not free if you've got a boss in your life, even if the boss, so to speak, leaves you alone, gives you carte blanche, gives you free rein.

例如罗马人特别强调：即便奴隶遇到仁慈宽厚、长期在外、任其自由行动的主人，他仍是奴隶。虽然未被实际干预，但因行动意志始终依附于主人的善意，故不算自由。因此我认为自由是：在关键选择中能按自我意志行动——既不受自身欲望束缚，也不受他人意愿左右。这种能力意味着你的选择权与主观意愿无关，在任何情境下都能自主决断。

So for example, the Romans made a point of arguing that the slave who had a kindly master, a gentle master, a master who was away all the time, who let them do as they wish, is still a slave. They're not free, even though they're not actually being interfered with, because they depend on the goodwill of their master in order to act according to their own will. So I came to think of freedom as being able to act as you will in relevant choices regardless of what you yourself wish to do and also regardless of what others wish you to do. It's to have that power, which is, so to speak, which means you don't, you have the power regardless of what you want. You can do it any given choice.

是的。在美国这样的国家，你可以选择投票或不投票，这取决于你的意愿，而且无论他人希望你如何选择，你都有权自主决定。他人或许希望你投票或不投票，但只要他们无权干涉，你实际上就是自由的。但假设你身处一个雇主强制要求你投票的工作环境，甚至要求你证明按照他或她的意愿投票，那么你就失去了这种自由，因为你无法无视他人——即雇主的意志，自主决定是否投票。

Yeah. You can you can choose to vote or not vote, let's suppose, in a country like America. And you can do either depending on what you want, but also you can do either regardless of what other people want you to do. Others may want you not to vote or may want you to vote, but actually you are free as far as others don't have that power. Now if you, for example, were in a workplace where the employer required you to vote, maybe required you to give evidence of voting his or her way, so to speak, then you'd lose the freedom, so to speak, to vote because you wouldn't be able to vote or not to vote regardless of the will of others, the will of the employer.

如果他们希望你投票，你就必须投票。我有时会引用亨利·易卜生的戏剧《玩偶之家》为例。剧中丈夫托瓦尔德拥有挪威法律赋予的全部权力（故事背景设定在1860年代），他能决定妻子诺拉穿什么、交什么朋友、晚上去哪里、能否看戏或听歌剧等等。但在戏剧开头，托瓦尔德深爱诺拉，给予了她完全的自由裁量权。

If they wish you to vote, you gotta vote. I sometimes give the example in, you know, Henry Gibson's play A Doll's House. Is the husband, Nora is the wife, and under Norwegian law, as it is at the time the play is depicting, which is the eighteen sixties, a man has all the power. So depending what Thorvald wanted, he could dictate what she wore, who what friends she had, where she went in the evening, whether she could attend plays or the opera, whatever, it was all under his power. But in that play, at least at the beginning of the play, Torvald is so totally in love with Nora that he gives her carte blanche.

她实际上可以随心所欲地行动，按照自己的意志行事。但问题是：诺拉真的自由吗？我认为答案是否定的。

She can really act in effect just as she wishes. She can act according to her own will. And the question is, is Nora free? Well, I would say no. Right.

因为她能按自己意愿行事的前提，仅仅是索拉玛（注：应为托瓦尔德）希望她拥有这种自由。因此她的自由依赖于丈夫的意志。尽管她享有我称之为'无干涉的自由'，但她并不具备我所说的'无支配自由'——她的生活中存在支配者，在这个案例中就是她的丈夫。

Because she can act as she wishes only Solama's wishes that she should be able to act as she wishes. So she's dependent on his will. Even though she has freedom as noninterference, as I tend to call it she does not have freedom as well, I tend to say non domination. She has a dominance in her life. The dominance is her husband in this case.

如果你将自由理解为'无支配'，并认为这应当成为我们社会共同追求的理想，那么你就开始触及一种政治哲学的雏形：如何构建社会秩序。不过你可能有问题要问，而我讲得有些冗长了。但如果你愿意，我很乐意继续探讨这个话题——

Now if you think of freedom as non domination and then you think it should be an ideal that we could all enjoy in our society, then that gives you the beginnings of a political philosophy of working out how things should be ordered in society. But you probably have questions for me, and I'm going on to too great lengths. But I'm quite happy to continue on this line if you

我想你预判了我的问题。基于这种共和主义式的自由观——将自由定义为免于支配，这对社会构建意味着什么？因为这听起来可能有些抽象。比如，虽然我能随心所欲，但别人拥有阻止我的权力（只是未行使），这种思维方式会产生哪些实际影响？

I think that you anticipated my question. I guess I wanna I would wanted to ask, given that conception of freedom, this republican, version of freedom as absence of domination, how what does that suggest about organizing society to let that happen? Because it sounds maybe a little conceptual. Like, I can do whatever I want, but someone else has the power to stop me, but they're not using that power. What what are the practical effects of that way of thinking?

我认为实际影响是这样的：如果我们承认（正如我和大家都会认同的）自由是社会的应然状态，那么每个人都应平等享有'无支配自由'。你问如何实现这点？关键前提是：必须界定一系列选择领域，使人们能在这些领域中安全地按照自身意愿选择，完全不受他人意志左右。

Well, the practical effects, I think, are this. If we assume, as I assume and I think all of us would assume, that in a society, if freedom is not ideal, people ought to have access to that ideal equally. People ought to enjoy equal freedom as non domination. And now you ask about how would that be possible. Well, one requirement would be that you identify the range of choices where they can be given security in choosing as they wish regardless of how others wish.

传统上，那些在社会中被承诺或保障的选择权被称为基本自由。例如，它们当然包括言论自由、结社自由、迁徙自由、就业自由、更换工作自由等等。应该说还包括更多，但这些仅是举例。一个社会中首要的便是法律体系，它赋予每个人在这些特定领域的自由选择权。不仅如此，还要确保人们能无后顾之忧地实践这些选择。

And traditionally, that set of choices that were so to speak, promised or assured in the society have been called the basic liberties. So for example, they certainly include the liberty of speech, of association, of movement, of employment, of changing job and so on. They include much more, I should say, but those are just examples. Then the first thing you'd want in your society is a system of law that gives everyone freedom of choice in those particular areas. And not only that, that enables them to practice those choices with impunity.

这样做不会受到任何惩罚。但同样重要的是，法律要保护人们行使这些选择权，确保他们在行使时的安全。在这样的世界里，法律确实至关重要，它以公正的方式为每个人建立了一个安全空间。当然，在这个空间内，人们可以选择与他人建立亲密关系、友谊、家庭纽带等，这些关系会约束他们，但他们也可以自由退出这些关系。因此，在法律赋予的这个空间里，人们基本上是自主的。

There's no penalty from doing so. But equally, that protects them in the exercise of those choices, secures them in the exercise of those choices. And that is a world in which, you know, you think of the law is really important, and that it actually establishes in a an impartial way a space within which each person is secure. Of course, within that space, they may choose to form intimate relations with others, friendships, family connections, and so on that do bind them, but they can exit those relations as well as entering them. So they are basically sovereign in this space that the law gives them.

在这种图景中，法律实际上为我们创造了自由。它是基础设施，是我们自由的基础。以言论自由为例，我们之所以能享有这种自由，仅仅是因为有宪法和一系列法律确保我们在决定说什么或不说什么时免受某些干扰。

Now in this picture, the law is actually what creates freedom for us. It's the infrastructure Right. On the basis of which we are free. So for example, freedom of speech. We enjoy only in so far as there is a constitution, a set of laws that actually ensures us against certain sorts of interference in in the exercise of choice as to what we say or don't say.

但非常关键的是，我们都同意，当法律赋予我们每个人这种安全空间（比如按意愿发言的权利）时，它是有前提条件的。例如，前提是言论的使用不会以各种方式造成损害。比如，如果言论扰乱公共秩序（就像经典例子中在拥挤剧院里谎报火警），那么言论自由就不应保护这种行为。必须要有前提条件。这意味着必须要有法院来解释法律，并在需要时引入新的前提条件。但核心理念是，法律应确立具有以下特征的基本自由：每个人都能享有这些基本自由，按照自己的意愿行使这些自由，不受他人意志左右。

And very importantly, though, we all agree that when the law gives each of us that sort of secure space, say to speak as we wish, it does so only under certain provisos, under the proviso, for example, that the use of the speech is not damaging in various ways. For example, if it disturbs public order, you know, like calling out fire, you know, in a packed theater in the old example, then freedom of speech should not protect you in a case like that. There have to be provisos. This means there really have to be courts in order to interpret the law and to introduce new provisos if provisos are needed. But the idea is that the law should identify basic liberties which have the following characteristics, that everyone can enjoy each of those basic liberties, acting, exercising those liberties according to their own will and independently of what others would wish them to do.

每个人都应享有这种自由。但同样重要的是，我们要界定这些基本自由，确保每个人对自由的行使不会让所有人的处境比没有这些自由时更糟糕。

Each should have that. But equally, we should carve out these basic liberties so that everyone's enjoying them doesn't make everyone worse off than they would be if they didn't have them.

好的。

Okay.

这里有个非常贴切的例子。我的生活如你所知往返于澳大利亚和美国之间。在美国，人们拥有为个人防护持枪的自由，前提条件非常宽松（当然仍有些限制）。而在澳大利亚，前提条件非常严格，实际上并不存在仅为自我防护而持枪的自由。

Now a very pertinent example here. I mean, I divide my life as I think you know between Australia and, and The United States. In The United States, there's a freedom to own a gun for personal protection with very light provisos, but still some provisos, of course. In Australia, they're very, very heavy provisos. So there really effectively is not a freedom to own a gun just for self protection.

现在有些人认为，拥有枪支自卫的自由是成为自由人的基本条件，可以说在澳大利亚某种程度上人人都成了奴隶。但我必须说实际情况并非如此。在澳大利亚生活时，大多数当地人都会告诉你：即便没有持枪自卫的权利，你也不会感到更不安全——因为当然，其他人也同样无法广泛获得枪支。

Now some people, you know, who make a think that freedom of the freedom to own a gun for self protection is essential, so to speak, to being a free person. Think that everyone's a slave, so to speak, to that extent in Australia. I have to say it doesn't feel like that. You know, when when you're in Australia, most Australians will will say this. You don't feel any the less secure for guns not being available to you to protect yourself because, of course, you also know they're not available to others, at least, very widely.

因此这是一个关于如何在不同文化、法律体系和国度中设计基本自由的问题，不同国家会选择不同的基本自由来优先保障。但真正重要的是，我们生活中应当有法律为所有人确立相同的自由体系。我想补充的是，法律不仅要阻止他人干涉我们行使这些自由，同样重要的是——我认为这也是共和传统的一部分——法律和社会应当创造条件让人们能够真正享有这些基本自由，比如通过防止赤贫、保障教育来实现，因为只有受过教育才能在人际交往中立足，在医疗紧急情况下提供帮助而非依赖他人善意。法律既要保护人们免受他人干涉，也要赋能人们享受基本自由。

So that's a case of where we have to devise the basic liberties in different cultures, different legal systems, different countries will select different basic liberties to privilege and protect, so to speak. But what's really important is that in our lives we should have a law that establishes the same body of liberties for all of us. I would say that, if I can just add one thing more of this, that it's not just important that the law stops other people interfering with us in the exercise of these liberties. It's also important, I would say, and I think it's part of the republican heritage, the classical republican heritage, the civic republican heritage, as you might say, that the law and the society should equally make it possible for people to be able to enjoy those basic liberties, should make it possible by, for example, guarding them against destitution, by ensuring their education because you've got to be educated to basically hold up in relations with others to provide help for them in the case of medical emergencies rather than depending on the goodwill of others. It's got to empower people to enjoy the basic liberties as well as protecting people, against others in the enjoyment of those basic liberties.

这就是我称之为'社会正义脉络'的思考路径。

So that's one strand. I call it the social justice strand

好的。

Okay.

从共和思想的角度来看。这个联系对你可能显得薄弱，但我认为这归根结底关乎人类的本质——我们是社会性生物，彼此依存，必须在与他人的关系中塑造自我个性，在社会实践中内化思维模式，发展对他人的承诺，建立人际关系。而法律正是这个体系的核心，尤其是基于法治约束、在公民间保持中立、既能保护又能赋能的法律。

In a republican way of thinking. And now maybe the connection may seem a bit slim to you, but I I do think it goes back to thinking about human beings. We are essentially social creatures who depend on one another, who have to find space in relationship with another to create our own individuality, internalizing the social practices in the development of our own thought processes, in the development of our own commitments to others, in the development of own relationships. And law is at the center of that. And especially a law that is enforced and enacted on the basis of rule of law constraints in a way that is impartial between the citizens of a society and a law that empowers as well as protects people.

这就是公民共和思想中的'社会正义脉络'。

That's the social justice, so to speak, strand in in the civic republican way of thinking.

我其实能清晰看到从语言、人类特殊性、社会维度直到政治哲学的完整联系。我本想问的是——你也略有提及——当政治哲学以自由概念为核心时，确实会面临他人重视的对抗性价值，无论是安全、平等等等。你似乎承认这些也是重要价值，因此我们需要设置限制。但在我看来，如何系统性地决定在何处保护自由、在何处为其他价值设限，似乎还缺乏完美的解决方案。

I actually see the connection with the language and and human exceptionalism and and the social aspects pretty clearly all the way up to the political philosophy. The question I was going to ask, and and you sort of hinted at it, but let's make it a little bit more clear. When one has a political philosophy centered on a conception of freedom or liberty, one does have countervailing values that other people are going to care about, whether it's security or equality or whatever. And I think you're you're admitting, yes, those are also values, and so therefore we put improvisos there. It seems like a little bit less than perfectly systematic, to me how we figure out where to protect the freedom, where to bound it in favor of other values.

当然，你知道，我认为亚里士多德在某处说过，我们不应在任何学科中追求超出现实允许的精确度。从根本上说，并不存在一个数学理论能规定政策应该如何制定。这始终是个判断问题，总会有分歧，必须通过协商达成妥协——通过话语协商。我认为最了不起的是，在我们后启蒙时代的西方民主制度演变过程中（至少迄今为止），我们已经发展出一套法律体系，以及对法律及其赋予我们相互关系的理解，这是极其重要的，我们绝不能失去。

Of course. It's you know, I think that Aristotle says somewhere, you know, we shouldn't look for more exactitude in any discipline than reality makes available, so to speak. There isn't a a mathematical theory, basically, of how best the policy ought to be ordered. It's always a matter of judgment, and there will be disagreements, and there have to be compromises negotiated, you know, discursively negotiated And I think the great thing is that in the in the evolution, at least so far, of our post enlightenment, you know, western democracies, I think we have evolved a system of law, you know, and an understanding of law and of the place it gives us in relation to one another. That is really deeply important and that we dare not lose.

若真失去了，我想我们将沦落到一种更低劣的生活层次。但我说过，这是共和主义哲学中关于正义的脉络。当然，法律并非由算法颁布，也不是天上某个公正存在发布的。法律本身就是人类创造的。需要人民来制定宪法并维护它，建立立法机构并维持它，设立法院并维系它。

Or if we do, we descend, I think, into a very much inferior sort of level of life. But there is one I said that's the sort of justice strand of this republican philosophy. Of course, law isn't issued, so to speak, by an algorithm or isn't issued by an impartial presence in the sky. Law is itself created by human beings. It takes people, to establish a constitution and maintain it, to establish a legislature and maintain it, to establish courts and to maintain it.

当然，始终存在的危险是：法律可能保护我们免受彼此伤害——或者说免受他人专断权力的侵害，那些根据其意愿干涉我们空间的权力。它或许能保护我们免受他人的专断行为，但法律源头本身仍可能存在专断成分。立法者可能是个精英集团或独裁者，随心所欲地制定法律，以那种专断方式立法。如此一来，我们将屈服于一种纵向的支配——即便这种支配保护我们免受私人生活中的主人（domini）的统治。

And, of course, what's always a a danger is that the law might protect us from one another from, so to speak, the arbitrary power of others, the power of others who interfere depending on what they wish in our space. It may protect us against arbitrary by others. But there still could be an arbitrary part of the source of the law. So the lawmakers, you know, might be an elite or a despot single individual who, so to speak, makes laws just as he or she wishes, you know, or they wish, that make laws arbitrarily in that way. And to that extent, we would be subject to a dominance, to speak, of a vertical kind, even if that dominance protects us against the masters, the domini, you know, in our private lives.

因此除了横向正义外，还需要纵向正义维度。可以称之为民主正义——关乎立法者、执法者和司法者的正义。我们已经发展出一套践行此道的体系，虽不完美但可完善。广义上说，这就是超越选举的民主制度。

And so you have to have a vertical dimension of justice as well as horizontal. Democratic justice, you might call it. Justice in relation to the lawmakers and the law imposers and the law adjudicators. And, you know, we have evolved a system of doing that, which is very imperfect, but I think perfectible. And that is, broadly speaking, a democratic system, which involves more than election.

我是指选举部分官员，当然我们并非选举所有政府成员。比如通常不选举法官——我认为这或许是好事，因为法官有特定职责：依据法典解释法律并按法典适用法律。若选举法官，就给了他们相反的动机——连任的动机。

I mean, the election of some officials, and, of course, we don't elect all of those who play a part in government. We generally don't elect judges, for example. Probably, I think a good thing because judges have a specific job to do, which is to interpret the law according to the books and to apply it according to the books. If you elect them, you give them a a contrary motive, which is a motive to be reelect ed

是的。

Yeah.

这可能扭曲他们对法律忠诚的承诺。所以我们确实存在某种意义上凌驾于我们之上的权威，这很重要。关键在于：他们在制定、修改、实施、解释和适用法律时的决策，必须受到我们民众普遍支持的条款约束。政府必须按照人民的条款运作。

Which may actually bend their commitment to fidelity to the law. So we do have authorities, so to speak, who have power over us. That's very important. And what has to be the case is that the decisions they make in making laws, in changing laws, in imposing laws, interpreting laws, applying laws, those decisions have to be constrained on terms that we, the people, generally support. Government has to be on the people's terms.

我认为这通过多种方式得以保障。选举当然是其中一部分，但更重要的是民主赋予我们的质疑可能性。我们可以将政府人员告上法庭——这是治理体系中独立且至关重要的制衡部分，我们也能在媒体上批评他们。

And this is ensured in various ways, I would say. By election is certainly part of it. But even more important, I would say, is the contestatory possibilities democracy gives us. We can take those in government to the court. A different part of the governance system, but independent and importantly independent in our way of thinking, the system checks and balances, we can criticize them in the media.

假设我们拥有自由媒体，公共广播或相互竞争的私营媒体，至少能相互制衡保持相对诚实。当然，我们还有在街头、媒体和法庭上进行抗议的可能性。民主的这种抗争性与选举制度同等重要。政府中非选举产生的职位任命（如法官等）也受到法律和宪法规定的约束，这些归根结底是我们人民对任命程序、透明度、法官行为准则及其忠诚对象设定的限制。理想情况下，这些约束能构建起控制体系，防止掌权者无视民意独断专行。

Assuming we have a free media, a public broadcaster or private broadcasters that are at least in competition with one another to the point to keep one another that they keep one another relatively honest. And, of course, we have the possibility of contesting in the streets as well as in the media and in the courts. And that contestatory aspect of democracy is just as important as the as the electoral. And we also, of course, have the appointments that are made in government that are not by election, of judges and so on, are made under constraints that the law, the constitution lays down that ultimately are the constraints laid down by we the people on how those should be made, on the transparency that should be available, on the conditions under which the judges should act, on what they should be faithful to. And these constraints ideally could build up a system of control such that those in power, those in power in the state do not make decisions just as they wish regardless of what we wish.

在这个意义上，他们不能武断决策。他们必须在我们人民设定的约束下行事：面临落选的压力、媒体舆论的谴责、来自民众（无论是在法庭、媒体还是街头）大规模反对的威慑。这些约束都是控制体系的关键要素，意味着我们生活中不存在纵向支配——正如法律理想状态下应使我们免受私人领域的支配那样。

They don't make the decisions arbitrarily in that sense. They have to make decisions under constraints that we, the people, impose. The constraint of not being elected next time, the constraint of being shamed in the media, the constraint of facing huge opposition from the people at large, whether in the courts, in the media, or indeed on the streets. These are all constraints that are really important aspects of the system of control that would mean that there is no vertical dominance in our lives as the law ideally should prevent us from having to suffer the private dominance in our lives. Yeah.

这真是美妙的维度。

It's wonderful. Dimension.

没错。这为法治、权力制衡以及防止权力集中提供了绝妙的哲学基础。

Right. It's a wonderful philosophical underpinning for the rule of law, the checks and balances, the, you know, not concentrating on power.

这些都是手段，是实现人民对政府行为控制的所有促进因素，它们至关重要。如果放弃这些，转向一种掌权者不受法治约束、无视现有制衡机制、漠视法庭裁决的政府形式，他们就会变得专横跋扈——那将陷入弱肉强食的混乱状态，或称无政府状态甚至专制暴政。我们就会背离那种本可触及却尚未完全实现的文明形态。

These are all means. These are all facilitators of popular control over what government does, and they're crucial. And if you give it up, if you move to a form of government where those in power do not feel bound by rule of law constraints, do not feel bound by checks and balances that the system has in place, do not feel bound by the court ruling against them, for example, can be high handed in their attitudes, then you're moving to a free for all, which is to say chaos or sort of anarchy or indeed despotism. You're moving away from the sort of civilization that is within our grasp but is only imperfectly realized.

与现实事件的关联就留给听众自行思考了。不过

Connections to current events are left for the audience to work out for themselves. But

好的。

Okay.

但在结束前我还有一个问题。如果相信你的维基百科页面，你的政治哲学确实产生了现实影响，尤其是在西班牙。这是真的吗？能简单谈谈吗？

But I will one final question before we let you go. If your Wikipedia page is to be believed, your political philosophy has actually had real world implications, especially in the country of Spain. Is that is that true? Could you say a few words about that?

是的，确实如此。我出版过一本名为《共和主义》的书，阐述了这种共和思想及其政治影响。这本书在90年代末被翻译成西班牙语。当时反对党领袖萨帕特罗决定，如果执政，他需要一种政治哲学来指导政府工作。

Yeah. That that is true. I I published a book called republicanism, which is sets out this view of republican thought and its implications for politics. In a book I published in the late nineties, it was translated to Spanish. And the leader of the opposition, Zapatero, decided that he wanted a political philosophy to guide him in government if he won government.

我从他的顾问那里得知，他广泛阅读政治哲学著作，显然被这本《共和主义》所吸引，认为这种公民共和主义正是应该指引他的政治哲学。他于2004年上台后，邀请我到马德里为大批听众做讲座，因为他一直在运用这种传统思想脉络中的观点。我要说明的是，公民共和主义并非我的发明，我只是在阐述一种可以追溯到美国建国时期的思想传统——包括开国元勋们的思想——这种传统在19-20世纪逐渐式微。但他采纳了这种思想，甚至使用了我书中的短语，比如'无支配'成了重要口号。

And I know from his advisers, he read widely in political philosophy, and he was he was taken apparently by this republicanism book and decided that this civic republicanism was the sort of political philosophy we ought to guide him. And he did come to power in 2004 and he invited me to give a lecture in to a very large audience in Madrid because he'd been using the thoughts, in the of the strands of of thought in the tradition. And I do say it's not by invention, civic republicanism. I'm just giving voice to a tradition that I think was there right down to the American founding and including the thought of the American founders, which was lost in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by my own perceptions. But he he adopted this and he used phrases from my book, for example, that no domination, you know, no domination became the great catchcry.

甚至在选举法案上，我...

Even in the on electoral bills, I I was

某种程度上

sort of

对此感到惊讶。人们逐渐理解了他所倡导的理念。我有时会用所谓的'对视测试'来判断一个社会是否真正实现了作为无支配状态的自由——即在这个社会里，人们能够坦然对视，不必因对方的权势而心怀恐惧或卑躬屈膝。至少在基本自由领域，人们能够昂首挺胸，平等相视。

amazed at this. And And people sort of came to understand it, you know, what he was talking about. And I sometimes use the, what I call, the eyeball test in determining how far a society really is one, which are enjoying freedom as nondomination, which is to say it's a society where people can look one another as one another in the eye without reason for fear or deference based on the power of the other. That at least in the realm of the basic liberties, they can stand tall. They can look one another in the eye.

我认为这只有在法律框架下才可能实现。你知道吗？在草原上、荒野中、独自一人或无政府的社会里是不可能的，这需要法律的塑造，我们社会中的文化法律。他对此非常认同。因此，例如，他的议会最早的法案之一就是引入同性婚姻。

And I think that is only possible in virtue of law. You know? It's not possible on the prairies, so to speak, in the wilderness, on your own, or in an anarchic society requires the shaping of law, the cultural law in our societies. And he was very taken by that. And so, for example, one of the first acts of his parliament was to introduce gay marriage.

在一个非常天主教的国家，他的立法机构是世界上第三个引入同性婚姻的立法机构，这非常了不起。

In a very Catholic country, his legislature was the third legislature in the world to introduce gay marriage, which is extraordinary.

是啊。

Yeah.

他在说服人们时运用了‘眼神测试’。我和一位西班牙律师兼政治理论家何塞·马蒂合著了一本书《公共生活中的政治哲学》，他在书中写到萨帕特罗议会在这一议题上的表现——他在议会中公开质问：假设你们是异性恋，你们中有谁能走出议会，面对一位同性恋朋友，并期待他们能毫无畏惧或卑微地直视你的眼睛，如果你们刚刚投票否决了他们亲密关系应享有的保护，而这种保护是你们异性恋在亲密关系中享有的？据说这极具说服力。

And he used the eyeball test in persuading people, to do this. There is a book which I published with a Spanish lawyer, and political theorist called Jose Marti, called political philosophy in public life where we he writes about the Zapatao parliamentary presence on this theme where he in parliament said to parliament and indeed said it at large, which of you can leave this parliament and meet a gay friend, assuming you're heterosexual, and expect them to be able to look you in the eye without reason for fear or deference if you have just voted to deny their intimate relationships, the protection that you as heterosexual enjoy in your intimate relationships. And, apparently, it was very powerful.

确实发生过这种情况。

It does happen.

我认为在其他方面，他非常有效地运用了共和主题。在他首次担任首相总统期间（在西班牙这一称呼一直持续到2008年），全球金融危机稍微转移了焦点，但他推行的大部分法律——我在马德里讲座中提到——比如他早已通过一项法律，使西班牙的公共广播机构（类似西班牙的BBC）真正独立于当时的政府。他声称是受我的书启发才朝这个方向改革。

And I think in other ways, it it was he used he used the republican themes very effectively. In the first parliament, when he was prime minister president, they say, in Spain until that was until 2008. The great financial crisis rather changed the focus a bit, but most of the laws that he introduced and I was saying I gave this lecture in Madrid at the end of this lecture. I joked him about, for example, he had, he had already passed a law in which the public broadcaster in Spain, a sort of BBC of Spain, was really made independent of the government of the day, that law. And he claimed to be following my book in in in going that direction.

我认为非常重要的一点是，如果有公共广播机构，它应该是独立的，即使资金来自政府。他做到了这一点。我在演讲中半开玩笑地说：你已经制定了这项法律，我认为这太棒了，我完全支持。

Now I think very important that if there is a public broadcaster, it should be an independent public broadcaster even if it is funded from government sources. Right. And he had done this. And I said in my talk, jokingly as I thought, look, you've made this law, and I think that's terrific. I fully support it.

但你会发现很难遵守这项法律，因为我预测一年后，公共广播机构将成为你政策的批评者，而你会非常想打电话给台长，提醒他这权力是谁赋予的，姑且这么说吧。虽然我是开玩笑，但他没有按准备好的稿子回应，而是表示会在诸多议题上践行这些原则。为了证明他的信心，他邀请了我——我们半小时前才初次见面——在下届选举前六个月对他的政府表现进行评审。哇。

But you're going to find it very difficult to live up to this law because I predict that a year from now, the public broadcaster will be a critic of your policies, and you're going to be sorely tempted to ring up the director and to remind him of who he got this power from, so to speak, or she got this power from. And it meant as a joke, but in response to my speech rather than giving his prepared remarks, he said he would live up to these themes on a whole range of issues. And in token of his confidence in this, he invited me. He had only met me for the first time half an hour previously to review his government for his performance six months before the next election. Wow.

这不是我通常会做甚至愿意做的事。但我和一位观众站起来说，如果他接受，我的基金会将支持菲利普·佩蒂特完成此事。当然，我不得不接受

It's not the sort of thing I generally do or even would ever wish to do. But I and someone stood up in the audience and said my foundation will support, Philip Pettit in doing this if he accepts. And of course, I had to accept the

是的，我知道那个邀请。

Yes. I know that. The invitation.

于是我在2007年下次大选前确实做了评审。西班牙媒体都强烈要求我给他打分。你知道吗？我很乐意给出9分（满分10分）之类的评价。

So I did do a review in 2007 prior to the following election. The press in Spain all pressed me, very strongly to give him a mark. You know? I I was happy enough to say nine out of 10 or something like that.

好的，不错。

Okay. Good.

那段时期很有趣。我多次与他会面，他迫切想让我相信他推行的政策符合共和主义思想原则。确实，有些政策非常出色。我认为他大体上是忠诚的，但这让我了解了他的思维方式。这位我后来极为钦佩的人，对民主和民主领导力有着深刻信仰。

It was very interesting in that period. I met with him a number of occasions where he was anxious to persuade me he was being faithful to the principles of republican thought in the policies he was introducing. And indeed, they were very, in some cases, very remarkable policies. And I think he was broadly faithful, but it gave me a sense of how he was thinking. He's this man I came to admire greatly, deep believer in democracy, but in democratic leadership.

例如，他不会强行通过我们接受的同性婚姻法案。他引导民众支持——据传在他提出前，连本党多数人都反对。但法案通过时，西班牙民众支持率达65%。反对党当即表示掌权后要废除该法律。

So for example, he would not have pushed with that gay marriage law, acceptance of ours. He brought people along with him. When apparently prior to his introducing it, there was a majority even his own party against. When it passed, there was a 65% majority in favor in the Spanish people. The opposition immediately said, we will revoke the law as soon as we get to power.

当然，他们没有。

Of course, they didn't.

他们没有。

They didn't.

那时已经很普遍了。是的。大多数人都参加过同性婚姻、同性婚礼，你知道，这时候收回这种许可、这种对广大群体的合法化认可，显得非常刻薄。总之，这就是与现实生活的联系。我还有过其他经历，但这个绝对是唯一一个堪称'彩色'的例子，可以这么说。

By then popular. Yeah. Most people have gone to a gay marriage, to a gay wedding, you know, and it just seems so mean spirited to withdraw, you know, this license, this legitimation that you've given to a large section of our population. Anyhow, that's the connection with practical life. I've had a few others, but that that's certainly the the only Technicolor one, so to speak.

听起来他在你演讲中的手势和你的回应都非常契合我们最初讨论的人类本质——你知道，人们通过言语行为来保证其代表真实的信念和当时的承诺。

Well and it sounds like his gestures at your talk and your responses both fit in perfectly with the where we started with human beings, you know, offering assurances of their speech acts representing true beliefs and and commitments at the time.

你能这么说真是太好了。我愿意相信确实如此，但正如我所说，我可能是在自我欺骗。

Well, it's very nice for you to say so. I'd I'd like to believe that's the case, but as I say, I may be deceiving myself.

你给了我们很多思考的空间。菲利普·佩蒂特，非常感谢你参加《心景》播客。

You've given us a lot to think about. Philip Pettit, thanks so much for being on the Mindscape Podcast.

非常愉快。谢谢你，肖恩。

It's been a real pleasure. Thank you, Sean.