自由的几种分类

粗略来看,自由至少可以分为以下几种:

受限于物理法则的自由。这种自由包括物理法则所允许你做的一切事。一个人独自登月的自由、去火星的自由,和谋杀的自由都属于这种自由。

受限于基因上的自由。物理法则虽然不禁止你飞翔,但是由于你是人,拥有人的基因,所以你注定无法像鸟一样飞翔。也就是说,虽然物理法则并不限制你飞翔的自由,但是你的基因限制了。

受限于能力的自由。虽然物理法则允许你做许多事,但是有些事情受限于你的(后天的)能力,你并不能做得到,于是你至少暂时并不真正拥有这些自由。比如,一个人独自登月的自由。假以时日,你能力成长,你将重新获得这种自由,这一点区别于受限于基因上的自由。

受限于(重大)代价的自由。虽然物理法则允许你做这样的事,你也有能力做这样的事,但是事情的结果往往会让你付出巨大的代价,在这种代价面前,你几乎不会考虑做这种事。也就是说,你并不能随心所欲地兑现这种自由——那也就是不自由了。比如:谋杀的自由。

受限于利益的自由。虽然你可以做许多事,这些事都会给你带来收益(或者,不大的代价),但是出于收益的考量,除非在特别情况下,你几乎不会做那些会给你带来你认为更少收益的事。于是,你的自由至少是部分地受限了。例如:考试前夕,你有玩游戏的自由,并且玩游戏能给你带来收益(和一些不大的代价),但是你并不真正地拥有选择到底是玩游戏还是复习考试的自由,因为复习考试能给你带来你认为的更大的收益,所以你几乎总是选择考试前复习而不是玩游戏。

受限于个性的自由。虽然你可以做许多事,这些事都会给你带来相似的收益(至少是表面上的),但是出于你的个人偏好,你总是会选择一些而不是另一些事。在这种情况下,虽然你仍然有随时选择做另一件事的自由,但是由于你极少兑现这种自由,你真正的选项其实比名义上的选项要少。例如:同时有巧克力味冰淇淋和草莓味冰淇淋时,你几乎总会选择巧克力味冰淇淋,甚至,你根本不会在意是否有草莓味冰淇淋这个选项。

个人认为,受限于利益的自由是一般人所真正必须考量的自由。

关于文献阅读与思想获取的方法论

一个奇怪的现象是,在文史哲等社科领域,人们似乎很注重阅读包括论文和书籍在内的原始文献,似乎要了解康德的思想就必须阅读《纯粹理性批判》,想了解古希腊哲学就必须阅读《理想国》。然而在理工科领域,却鲜有这样的例子。我从来没听过要学好初等数学就必须选择欧几里得的《几何原本》,要学好微积分就必须翻阅牛顿的《自然哲学的数学原理》,也没听说过要学好广义相对论就必须研究爱因斯坦1915年的论文。既然如此,在一切领域里,当可能的时候,为什么我们不能直接了解思想本身,而非要囿于用于传递思想的著作里呢?

有以下多种原因导致人们固执于阅读原始文献:

1)目标的异化。阅读文献是为了获得其中的思想,也就是说:a)是思想而不是文献是目标;b)任何能同等获得思想的方式都是可行的;c)在获得同等思想的情况下,人们应当选择最经济的方式。然而,不善思考的人容易因为同行氛围、传统等原因潜移默化地将文献而非思想当作他们的目标。在“思想-文献”这个目标异化的过程中,原本的手段变成了目标,这导致了人们要最优化的不再是如何获取思想而是如何阅读文献。

2)传统与氛围。一部分固执而懒于思考的人会因为“传统上人们都是通过阅读原始文献获得思想”而认为自己也应该采取同样的方式,因为这样的方式是a)稳健的,因为它们经过了历史的检验;b)是安全的,因为周围所有的人都采取类似的方式,从众心理给他们带来安全感;c)心理成本低廉的,因为从众者不必承担因为违背传统方式所带来的额外舆论成本。由于以上的问题仅仅是心理意义上的,它给人们带来的只是“好的感觉”而非“好”本身,因此理性地说只要人们能克服上述心理意义上的好,就能通过改良自己获取思想的方式而获得真正的好。

3)额外的信息。有一些人可能会认为原始文献里包含了额外的、在其他地方难以获取的信息。这种论点的确在某些时候站得住脚,然而这类人没有考虑到的是,在有限的生命里我们是否值得为那有限的边际收益付出性价比极低的高昂时间成本。事实上,在绝大多数情况下,我们有理由相信,上述人说声称的原因是不适用的,因为:a)一种学说其核心思想与主要论证是最重要的,而且这种重要程度相比其他琐屑的内容的重要程度往往是压倒性的;b)合格的关于该种学说的转述、概括或介绍,都必然完整地包含该种学说的核心思想与主要论证,也即包含了其最重要的部分;c)这类合格的转述、概括和介绍,在许多情况下都是不稀缺的,也即人们不必担心找不到这样的资源。基于上述论证,绝大部份情况下,人们实际并不必为了额外的信息而选择原始文献。

因此,只要条件允许,我们应该直接选择获取思想效率最高的方式;这种方式通常包括阅读该思想的转述、概括或介绍,而通常不包括阅读原始文献。

为什么我认为内省是最难能可贵的品质

标题没说完,其实完整的话应该是“为什么我认为内省是‘理性’、‘内省’和‘情绪控制’三者中最难能可贵的品质”。理由如下:

1)理性和情绪控制的大众接受度高,而内省的价值却长期被大众忽视,这造成内省程度高的人比其他两者更稀缺。学生在学理工科等偏逻辑的学科中潜移默化地就能学会理性思考这种思维范式,这使得绝大部分接受过良好教育的人大都拥有不错的理性(>6/10)。而近代以来,理性也是公认的好品质,大部分受过教育的人都会认可理性的价值,他们也都愿意变得理性,只是不是每一个人的都做得到而已。另一方面,现代的流水化细分工式生产,使得理性不再只是关乎到个人利益的优点,而成了决定生产力的要素。雇主都希望自己的员工是理性的,因为理性的员工决策正确率更高,办事更不容易出篓子,这能使雇主赚到更多的钱。

相比理性是衡量人在通常情况下遵循逻辑行事的程度,情绪控制则更多的是衡量人在面对压力和冲突时还能保持多少理性的标杆。情绪控制同理性一样,获得了绝大多数受过良好教育的人的认可,大多数受教育者都会希望自己的情绪控制能力足够强;而成功学等大众传媒不遗余力地宣扬情绪控制力,诸如“情商”这类概念的发明,也使得越来越多人能认识到情绪控制力的重要。

与理性和情绪控制充足的曝光率相比,内省这种品质却常常被人忽视。学校里从来不会有教人如何内省的课程,社会上似乎没人宣扬内省的好处,而工作上似乎有无内省也没有太大差别。不仅如此,因为内省是一个充分向内、排他性的行为,内省的过程本身很难被人观察得到。人们可能会夸奖身边的某某某很理性,情绪控制力很好,但是却鲜有人夸奖某人很内省。更坏的是,因为人们只能观察得到内省的结果,而这种结果可能就是“更理性”和“情绪控制力更好”,于是内省则更加被人忽视,而理性与情绪控制则更加被人赞扬,这真是恶紫夺朱啊。

2)内省的过程必然包含着内心的挣扎,而这种挣扎体现出人对自己的追求,这种追求使内省得以区别于理性和情绪控制这种更加低阶的品质。如果说情绪控制只是在与人的动物本能作斗争,而理性只是把人的智慧以逻辑的形式范式化,那么内省则超脱了“克服人的动物性”和“发扬人的智慧”这种更加基础的欲求,向着自我实现的目标进发。一个一帆风顺,万事如意的人是很难内省的:既然生活的一切都是那么的顺利那么的完美,那还要内省个什么呢?只有当人遇到困境与挫折的时候,人才会深刻体验到自己的存在。然而仅仅是困境和挫折是不够的,因为这还不足以激发人的内省。内省的奥妙在于,其全部动力来自于现实和理想的落差,内省程度愈深落差就愈高,而落差愈高也就愈体现人对自我实现的追求——灵魂的深度也便在此体现出来了。不仅如此,内省还意味着自我怀疑,而这种自我怀疑对于自尊心脆弱者和盲目自大者都是致命的。也就是说,一个充分内省的人,自尊心脆弱或盲目自大的概率大大降低,相比之下,他更有可能是一个不卑不亢不妄自菲薄的知己者。

3)正是因为上述所说的一二点,与理性和情绪控制相比,内省这种品质更加“天然”和纯粹,因为它不单单只是人性格上的优点,也照射出灵魂的深度。每一个人,哪怕他是十恶不赦之徒,都可以变得更理性、情绪控制力更强,只要他们愿意为之努力,而内省则绝非肤浅世俗之徒能企及的。

哲学研究上的哲学

阅读哲学的意义在于启发而不在于内容;如果读完一本哲学著作而没有任何启发,那么这个人只不过在读哲学史。有的人认为,读哲学就要弄明白作者的本意是什么,如果弄错了作者的本意,那就白读了,这样的人恰恰是在考究历史。事实上,只要在阅读的过程中获得了启发,即使弄错了作者原本的意思,那也算达成了哲学的目标。因此,如果有人不小心把康德的观点安在了尼采上,或者以为叔本华说过了一句其实他从未说过的话,那么我们只能说他的哲学史没学好,而不能说他的哲学不好。而那些总是一字一句地考究某位哲学家的某部著作里具体的某句话到底是什么含义,或者热衷于对比不同哲学家之间对同一个不那么重要的词语有何细微不同的解读的人,都是落入了哲学研究的下下乘,属于买椟还珠之举。

事实上,同样的观点很多时候也适用于其他领域,比如音乐、文学和宗教。世界上总有很多原教旨主义者,他们喜爱钻进作者写的某一个特定的句子里,争论这个句子到底是指什么意思,或者作者在此处到底想表达什么。于是,世界上多了很多哲学史学家,文学史学家,和宗教史学家(比如儒家史学家),而真正能够慧眼识珠的人却屈指可数。归根结底,是因为他们没有分清目标和手段的区别,这一点,将在我的博文《目标和手段》中详细叙述。

正因为哲学的意义在于启发而不在于内容,所以,如果有谁认为自己读过很多哲学著作,或者上过很多哲学课程,就认为自己懂很多哲学,那就大错特错了。这些人,最多只能说他们了解一些哲学史。同样地,如果因为对方没有读过某一本哲学著作,或者对某一个哲学家不了解,就加以嘲笑,也属于哲学史学家的做法。事实上,可以存在这样一种哲学家:他们没有读过任何哲学著作,却极其智慧地对每一件事物都有自己的看法,他不仅有自己的看法,还能给出依据,不仅有依据,而且这些依据还能连点成线层层递进,形成一个体系,而这个体系不仅逻辑严密而且能经得起细细推敲。如果这样的哲学家一不小心获得了同行的认可和关注,那么很可能一个伟大的哲学家就要诞生了。当然,这名哲学家可能对哲学史一窍不通,但是这并不妨碍他成为一名伟大的哲学家。

我并非提倡人人都要闭门造车,不读任何哲学著作而在家空想。站在巨人的肩膀上的确可以为哲学研究节省很多力气,但是,勤恳于这么做的人请务必记得:阅读哲学著作其实既非研究哲学的充分条件,也非必要条件。

Deductive Formalism of Jungian Cognitive Functions

(Draft)

Abstract

Jungian cognitive functions were first came up with by psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Jung in his book Psychological Types in 1921, based on which Isabel Myers and Katharine Cook Briggs created Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which enjoys great popularity in commercial use and causal self-testings by people. While MBTI has been refuted and discarded by academia due to its problematic statistical validity and test validity, the core theory behind it, Jungian cognitive functions, still has profound meaning and serves as an insightful tool in analyzing personalities and understanding people’s motivation and reasons behind their decisions and behaviors.[1] In this article, I attempt to deduct 16 psychological types as described by Jungian cognitive functions using a series of assumptions, which explains why there are sixteen, rather than other numbers of, psychological types, and why these sixteen types are the way they are (as described by certain permutations of Jungian cognitive functions) rather than other seemingly possible permutations. This article is not an discussion of the definition of Jungian cognitive functions, nor does it attempt to prove its validity. Readers are assumed to have prior knowledge in Jungian cognitive functions.

Key words: Jungian cognitive functions, MBTI, psychological types, personality

Continue reading

Phil 375 Assignment 2

Note: This was a work in rush, thereby not of good quality.

Ultimate philosophy — cope with suffering. – Do not worry, there will be a day when all people are dead and everything will be equally unimportant.

On knowledge. – All knowledge seekers are essentially information collectors, and vice versa.[1]

The power of music. – The power of music to emotional arousal is unparalleled: It is not merely that music has the most intensive effect on emotional arousal, but also that only music can easily change one’s mood into the desired one as one wishes.

Philosopher’s pity. – The pity of a philosopher is that he cannot debate with philosophers before his birth or listen to the critiques from philosophers after his death.

Loneliness. – If no live person can understand you, then turn to the dead!

Immortality. – If time is infinite and a man can be immortal, then for any of his past decisions and actions if he does not completely forget them, he is bound to regret them.[2] If he is a homo economicus, he should not believe in anything other than absolute truths unless he can guarantee that he will forget what he believes before regret. He will have a day when he starts to love what he used to resent most and resent what he used to love most. His memory will be infinitely thin such that it is almost unmeasurable, just as rational numbers sporadically spread on the number line. He will gradually forget who he is, unless he records everything that happens on him, until his forgetfulness surpasses his recording speed. He lives forever and dies ceaselessly. Essentially, he no longer owns his memory, and he is no longer a human being. If all this is the case, the heaven that the devout believers long for will become an existence that is infinitely more terrifying than the hell, and I would rather the universe be short-lived so that all nightmares will end in the inevitable destruction.[3]

An Immortal man. – An immortal man is destined to commit suicide.

Do not be worldly. -Being worldly, including, but not limited to,  focusing on or paying attention to politics, society, news, money, fame, and career, makes one stupid, unsettled, shortsighted and mediocre. Beware that it does not mean one will become noble if one does not do so, but what one should do instead is focusing on his internal spiritual world.[4]

Suspicious Amor fati. Amor fati is such a good and enchanting faith; it is just such a pity that I cannot see the logical reasoning behind it — why should I believe, why should I believe, why should I believe, and what if I just do not believe?

Complaint from a writer. – Writing philosophical works in one’s second language destroys one’s ability to elaborate his thoughts and convey the exact meaning, which is especially a disaster for someone who is very picky about word choices and must always differ the nuances between words before writing.

On thinking. – Recalling oneself’s thinking process is an annoying thing, for not only is it not as entertained and thrilled as thinking per se, but also that one has to worry about whether any inspiration is missed.

On beauty. – Everyone likes beauty. It is a pity, however, that instead of beauty, what most people pursue are beautiful things. I used to think that I was more foresightful than most people in that I did not pursue beautiful things but beauty itself. Nevertheless, I gradually found that the action of pursuing beauty per se is suspicious, and even beauty itself is also suspicious[5]. Hence after consideration I decided to no longer pursue beauty.

On misfortune. – Life is filled with misfortune, while there are always some misfortunate people who like being mean to those who are more misfortunate.

Knowledge and gold. – From knowledge seekers’ perspective, knowledge is like gold. Just as some people can find happiness without using gold, but only by occupying gold, some others can feel content without using knowledge, but only by having knowledge.

The farsighted and the shortsighted I. – The farsighted tend to be pessimistic, while the shortsighted tend to be misfortunate, for the former are able to see all the possible hardship in the future and realize their incompetence, while the later tend to make shortsighted decisions which bring them misfortune.

The farsighted and the shortsighted II. – The farsighted tend to be fortunate, while the shortsighted tend to be happy — they are all adorable.

Final thoughts. -Very soon, the day will come, when all of us will be dead, with our skeletons buried under earth and scary skulls never unmoved as if being lost forever in thoughts. The grades of this course will no longer matter, and what I have written here will be lost to the world. Nobody will know we ever existed; not even in the most humble way can someone tell our stories, the great debates that took placed in class, the small talks I had with classmates…… Very soon, the day will come, when human beings will extinguish, and there, in the whole universe, will not even have a tiny trace that can show there was an intelligence called human that has flourished somewhere in the cosmos, along with their grand stories……


[1] I am too lazy to lay out a detailed and well-defended argument, but let me give a concise one. For knowledge seekers (or we can define knowledge seekers as the followings, if you disagree), their sole ultimate mission is having all knowledge about this world, including both priori and posterior knowledge, which is essentially a sort of information (or at least, belongs to information). When time is limited, instead of trying to get all knowledge about the world, he should try to gain knowledge as much and as quick as possible before his death (deducted from the definition of knowledge seekers). Since some knowledge are more informative (i.e., the knowledge from which you can deduct new knowledge) than the others, for a rational knowledge seeker, he should try to gain those knowledge (instead of the others) if possible, since gaining as much knowledge as possible before his death is his mission. When the most valuable knowledge is gain, he should turn to the second most valuable knowledge, which by the definition, is less informative, i.e., contains less information. When the second most valuable knowledge is gained, he should turn to the third…… The process keeps going, which from the information collection’s perspective, is a process of collecting the biggest part of information out of all information at the first stage, followed by the second biggest one at the second stage…… Here, an isomorphic relation is built between knowledge and information, as they both goes from the “most” stage monotonically to the “least” stage. Finally, to obtain all knowledge about this world, the knowledge seeker must collect all information about this world, regardless of how trivial it might sound, for as long as there is some information can be collected but remains unknown, the knowledge seeker has not yet finished his mission, since he has not known about that part (i.e., the missing information) about the world.

The same argument can also be applied to the reversed direction: All information collectors are essentially knowledge seekers. (Hints: To collect as much information as possible before an information collector’s death, he must become a knowledge seeker and start with the most valuable knowledge if possible, since the most valuable knowledge contains most information.

[2] If he “revises”, “corrects” or “improves” his past decisions or actions, it means he regrets what he has done in the past — no matter how light his regret is.

[3] Memory belongs to information. Within a limited space, the information can be stored is limited, otherwise the materials storing the information will collapse to a blackhole and thereby lose all information. For a being to be smart enough at least at human’s level, the materials constructing it must have some not small mass density, which limits the space the being can occupy, otherwise the being will also collapse to a blackhole. Hence, both the space that a being occupies and the information that can be store in that space is limited, which results in the memory a being can have is limited.

[4] Yes, even people like Confucius, Alexander, Shakespeare, Ben Franklin, Gandhi,…, are stupid, unsettled, shortsighted and mediocre to some extent by my standard as discussed in the aphorism — it is not necessarily a shame. Or for a better word if you want, they are not wise, settled, foresightful, and good enough.

[5] We need to assume beauty is a subjective feeling/assessment rather than an objective existence, which is too big a topic to discuss or prove here (though I can prove it) — let’s just assume it as true for now. Since beauty is a subjective feelings/assessment, it totally depends on the aesthete’s aesthetic system. This means beauty is changeable over space and time — the beauty you “obtain” now is not necessarily still beauty in the future, and if time is long enough, it must be not, since given infinite amount of time anything possible to happen will happen by math. If the beauty your pursue is no longer beauty in the future, your effort is wasted during the process — or in a more precise word, your effort has a low return. Hence I no longer pursue beauty, a short-lived illusionary thing.

美、丑与自由

今天去711的时候,看见了一个女人穿着性感的黑丝袜,于是我便想起了几年前在中大上的福柯与法,想起了他的《规训与惩戒》,想起了他的《性史》,还想起了尼采的权力意志。女人性感精致的打扮,说到底是社会驯化的结果,然而,她是不自觉的:人即是这种无时无刻不被社会规范和基因约束与操纵然而又不自觉地以为拥有自由的动物。

你也许会争辩,认为她这样打扮只是为了追求美;并且,她追求美并不是为了给谁看,而只是让自己赏心悦目——正如知乎上“女人打扮的社会原因是什么?”和“女生打扮得漂漂亮亮,是为了彰显自己独立自信,还是为了迎合男权社会审美?”的某些答案所讨论的那样。如果你这样想,请你先别激动,我并无意论证她的打扮究竟是不是为了给谁看,我也更无意证明这样做是否是可鄙的——你可能认为这种迎合他人口味的展示一定是可鄙的,然而这并非你想象的那样显而易见,甚至,就连可鄙这个词本身都非常可疑。

让我们从发问开始吧:她为什么要打扮?如果是为了给别人看,所谓的“展示”自己,无疑她已经掉进了社会规范设置的陷阱,不论她意图展示的对象是同性还是异性。这很好理解:当她按照她的方式所打扮(而非随意穿着)的时候,她即认为这样的打扮是好的,而好是一个价值判断,一旦什么牵扯到价值判断,事情就开始变得主观起来了。人并非天生就知道什么是好的,而是在后天身处这个社会中所习得的,于是她将不可避免地要受到周围世俗观念的影响。当然,世俗不会直接告诉她,女人就应该穿黑丝,而是通过她身边的人、她所见到的广告、她所从电视上所知道的名流的行为展示着某一类女人都穿黑丝潜移默化地影响她的,直到社会氛围要么渐渐地说服她她也应该并且喜欢上了这么做,要么给她施加某种隐约的压力,当她不这么做时她会因为感觉到被排除了这类女人的圈子而产生的压力而感到不适,而这种不适最终导致她这么做。注意,这是一个非常因人而异的事情,如果你是一位女性而你不喜欢穿黑丝并且准备反驳我,我并不接受你因此而产生的反驳,更有可能的是,即使你不在这方面受到社会规范的驯化,你也很有可能在其他方面——比如,所谓的高跟鞋,所谓的长发,所谓的温柔……几乎所有由性别产生的刻板印象都在可能范围之列。

另一方面,如果这种打扮只是为了取悦自己,那么,一个恐怕并不为多数人所想到的问题是,为什么取悦你的是这个而不是其他什么?而为什么它又能取悦你,而不是让你产生其它什么感觉?为什么她,或者说,主流的穿丝袜的女人,穿的是黑色而不是红丝绿丝?如果说,人人都随机地拥有某种偏好,并且社会上展现出平均的概率分布时,我们大概可以安心的说,这真的只是个人偏好罢了,然而当事情倾向于某种或者某几种情况时,我们便不得不变得谨慎起来。事实上,通过穿着来取悦自己或者别人本身包含着一种审美过程,而审美本身是非常主观并且严重受一个人的经历与环境影响的。唐代的时候女人以微胖为美,而春秋战国的时候则有“楚王好细腰,宫中多饿死”,当一个人精心打扮自己,并声称这么做只是为了让自己赏心悦目时,他实际上于无意识中陷入了社会规范所设置的陷阱:是他身处的社会潜移默化地告诉他这样是美的,那样是丑的,于是他选择了美的妆扮,并且在镜子前欣赏自己而感到满足。如果哪天社会潮流变了,昔日的美变成了今天的丑,那么他便会摒弃从前的妆扮而另谋他样。

亲爱的读者,也许你会说你是一个独立、倔强且谨慎的人,拒不服从社会规训,并处处提防世俗的审美对自己的影响而选择自己独立的审美(比如,你的打扮独树一帜),你可能会说自己通过某种方法免除了社会规范的约束与影响,并且最终告诉我,你的打扮仍然只是为了取悦自己。让我们先不讨论这件事情在理论上是否可能,而是先大方地假设你声称的事情是真的,即使这样,这并不代表着人在打扮,或者说审美这件事上,是自由的。

让我们依然从发问开始:何为美?美意味着什么?从进化的角度讲,美即健康。人们追求美丽或者英俊的人,因为这种美丽或者英俊表明着一个人很健康,健康即意味着更强的生存和生殖能力,而更强的生存和生殖能力即意味着更有可能保留后代的能力。于是,自然选择便会保留那些能够识别这种美的基因,拥有这些基因的人也就能在挑选繁育后代的对象时获得优势因而脱颖而出。斗转星移,有一天终于进化为几乎人人都爱美,他们不仅在选择对象时喜欢挑美的人,甚至在镜子前欣赏自己的美都能沾沾自喜。如此看来,人不过是基因操纵的玩偶罢了:基因决定人应该爱美,于是人人都爱美;基因让人在欣赏美时感到愉悦,于是便有人想方设法让自己变美,不仅愉悦自己顺便也在与他人的互动中获取某些优势。然而人是不自知的,并且基因用美让人感到的满足,简直就好像大人拿一些简单而粗糙的玩具就可以轻易让小孩感到的满足一样。

一旦你认可了我上面所说的事,追求美这个行为便变得可疑起来:基因决定了我会喜欢美,我便一定要追求美吗?我一定要追求基因让我追求的东西吗?诚然,欣赏美的体验是好的,它能给我们带来愉悦感,从快乐的角度来讲我们似乎没有什么理由拒绝美。然而追求美是费力的,它需要很高的成本,时间上的、金钱上的、心理上的,甚至有时候会招致灾祸。太美的人可能会被同性嫉妒,而不够美的人却会因为缺乏外在美而苦恼,追求美的人在追求美的过程中花费了本可以花在其他事情上的时间,诸如此类。不仅如此,一旦你决定追求什么,你变会被它所牵制:你追求美时也即丧失了选择不美的自由。也许你会争辩,即使丧失了这种看起来没什么用处的自由你也无所谓,如果美是客观存在的,那么你的争辩听起来多少有点道理。然而一旦你意识到或者认可美是主观的[1],事情便变得棘手起来,这意味着今日你所求可能就是明天你所恶,而在这之间,除了收获了半衰期很短的愉悦感以外,你的精力都浪费了,而你并没有在这个过程中积累到什么长期的东西。

让我们暂时撇开话题来讨论一个有意思的思想实验:有没有可能存在这么一个世界,那个世界里人人都追求丑?你也许会说,如果人人都追求丑,那么那个世界的丑就变成了他们的美,因此他们还是在追求美。这里我并不打算玩这种文字游戏,我们知道,美的一个核心特点便是它能给人带来愉悦感,我们因此不妨定义丑的核心特点是它能给人带来厌恶感。那么,有没有可能存在这么一个世界,那个世界人人都追求能给他们带来厌恶感的丑?每个人都希望自己越丑越好,从而能恶心到尽可能多的人;而最丑的那个人在最大程度上恶心到所有人的同时也成为了所有人所嫉妒的对象。也许你会觉得这个例子很荒谬,然而它并不是你想象的那样荒谬。比如,在动物世界,动物可能会追求一种凶狠的面貌以恐吓异类以及同类,尤其是同性的同类。在我们看来,老虎头上的王字以及它的外貌与斑纹可能显得很酷,然而在它的同性同类眼里,那样的面貌可能不仅凶狠还使那些力量不够强大的同性感到厌恶和恐惧,与此同时,每一只老虎又渴求自己能够像他们之中最凶神恶煞的老虎那样凶狠。这里我并没有暗示老虎拥有进行这些思考的能力,我只是举一个例子罢了,然而这种例子其实不是不可能的,比如在远古时期的人类中可能就有这种追求凶狠的社会氛围存在,只是现代的法律最大程度上保障了人的安全,因此这种恐惧才渐渐消除。

综上所述,人其实远没有自己想象的那样自由;人不仅时时刻刻地受社会规范的影响和约束,也被基因影响着一举一动。那么,我们有没有可能打破这种桎梏,追求更大的自由?我们又要如何打破这种桎梏?问题一旦谈到追求,正如在我前文所讲的那样,我们便不得不变得谨慎起来。一旦我们追求什么,我们其实就预设了那样东西对我们是好的,而好又是这样一个主观的判断,它因时因地可能都会变化,它可能不会长久甚至会反转,比如今天的好可能就是明天的坏。那自由是好的吗?答案并非你想象的那样显而易见,至少,证明它为真要比想象的要困难得多!因此,不仅追求美是可疑的,甚至追求自由也变得可疑起来:人为什么要追求自由?人为什么会追求自由?人一旦追求自由,是不是就丧失了保持现状或者保持不自由的自由?这些都是非常值得讨论的问题。而问题回到桎梏:如果我们设法“打破”了这种桎梏,那么我们想方设法打破桎梏这个过程本身,是否被诸如“人要勇于反抗”这类我们被教导的精神所控制着,以及被人渴望自由这种刻在基因里的本性所牵制着,以至于我们陷入了一个新的总是要打破加在我们身上的桎梏的桎梏?如果确实如此,是否意味着人永远无法挣脱这种束缚,因为挣脱旧束缚本身其实是陷入新束缚的开始?

————————

[1] 我并不打算论证美是主观的,这是一个太大的话题,需要太多篇幅。