Skip to content

每一个社畜都需要一个鲁哥

每一个社畜都需要一个鲁哥

我们翻译这篇文章的理由

标题即理由。鲁哥Niubi

——唐萧

👇

每一个社畜都需要一个鲁哥

作者:TemmaEhrenfeld

译者:唐萧

校对:崔颖

策划:陈玉莲 & 刘蕊

WhyEpicurean ideas suit the challenges of modern secular life

为什么伊壁鸠鲁的观点适于面对现代世俗社会的挑战

每一个社畜都需要一个鲁哥

A messy life. Detail from The Netherlandish Proverbs (1559) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

混乱的生活。彼得.布勒哲尔 (Pieter Brueghel the Older)所绘画作尼德兰箴言(1559)细节图。

译者注:

尼德兰箴言(荷兰语:Nederlandse Spreekwoorden)又译作“尼德兰谚语”、“荷兰谚语”,是法兰德斯画家彼得.布勒哲尔 (Pieter Brueghel the Older)1559年创作的一幅油彩画,画中描绘了大量的当时在尼德兰地区流行的谚语,很多现在仍然在使用。

彼得.布勒哲尔的画作一向以人类的荒谬愚蠢为题材,而这幅画的原题是“蓝色披风” (de Blue Cloak) 或“世界的愚蠢”(de Dwaasheid Van de Wereld),表明彼得.布勒哲尔的用意不只是歌颂荷兰谚语文化,还想籍此描写人类的愚蠢。原画以油彩绘画在橡木板上,画中描绘了112个可识别的成语或谚语,当中有些谚语不能确定是否真是彼得·布勒哲尔原本想表达的。

图解详见:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tboRw6CPXjI

‘The pursuit of Happiness’is a famous phrase in a famous document, the United States Declaration of Independence (1776). But few know that its author was inspired by an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus. Thomas Jefferson considered himself an Epicurean. He probably found the phrase in John Locke, who, like Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Adam Smith, had also been influenced by Epicurus.
“追求幸福”是著名文件《美国独立宣言》(1776)中的一句名言。但是几乎没有人知道这份文件的起草者托马斯·杰斐逊是受到了古希腊哲学家——伊壁鸠鲁的启发。他认为自己是伊壁鸠鲁主义的信奉者。他大概是从约翰·洛克那里习得这个词的,后者和托马斯·霍布斯、大卫·休谟和亚当·斯密一样,都受到了伊壁鸠鲁的影响。

Nowadays, educated English-speaking urbanites might call you an epicure if you complain to a waiter about over-salted soup, and stoical if you don’t. In the popular mind, an epicure fine-tunes pleasure, consuming beautifully, while a stoic lives a life of virtue, pleasure sublimated for good. But this doesn’t do justice to Epicurus, who came closest of all the ancient philosophers to understanding the challenges of modern secular life.

如今,如果你因为汤太咸而向服务员抱怨,英语国家中受过教育的都市人可能会说你是个伊壁鸠鲁主义者;而如果你不这么做,他们又会说你像斯多葛主义者一样隐忍。在大众眼里,伊壁鸠鲁主义者绝不将就,做派优雅,而斯多葛主义者则以德为先,将享乐升华为善行。” 但这个说法对伊壁鸠鲁不公平,因为在所有的古代哲学家当中,他的理论最能帮助我们理解现代世俗生活的挑战。

fine-tune:to make small changes to something in order to make it as good or effective as possible
(对于这个地方的翻译,我们讨论出的画面感是:能躺着吃饺子绝不坐着吃;“把打在牛排上的这盏灯换了”,是一种一点不舒服都受不得的感觉。但表达上始终感觉在打擦边球,不得其法。邀请各位读者朋友在留言区大显身手~)

Epicureanism competed with Stoicism to dominate Greek and Roman culture. Born in 341 BCE, only six years after Plato’s death, Epicurus came of age at a good time to achieve influence. He was 18 when Alexander the Great died at the tail end of classical Greece – identified through its collection of independent city-states – and the emergence of the dynastic rule that spread across the Persian Empire. Zeno, who founded Stoicism in Cyprus and later taught it in Athens, lived during the same period. Later, the Roman Stoic Seneca both critiqued Epicurus and quoted him favourably.

伊壁鸠鲁主义曾与斯多葛学派就谁能主导希腊和罗马文化发生过角逐。公元前341年,即柏拉图逝世六年后,伊壁鸠鲁出生。他在时代的恢弘背景下长大成人,立志一展鸿图。辉煌的古希腊时代即将落幕——这点从其独立的城邦群残骸中可以推断,日后席卷整个波斯帝国的王朝统治也开始出现,亚历山大大帝就在这样的背景中永远睡去。而此时的伊壁鸠鲁只有十八岁。同一时期,芝诺在塞浦路斯建立了斯多葛学派并在雅典进行传授。稍晚时候,来自罗马的斯多葛主义者塞内卡既全面分析了伊壁鸠鲁,又赞赏地引用他的话语。

came of age :(of a person) reach adult status.

Today, these two great contesting philosophies of ancient times have been reduced to attitudes about comfort and pleasure – will you send back the soup or not? That very misunderstanding tells me that Epicurean ideas won, hands down, though bowdlerised, without the full logic of the philosophy. Epicureans were concerned with how people felt. The Stoics focused on a hierarchy of value. If the Stoics had won, stoical would now mean noble and an epicure would be trivial.

今天,彼时这两种相互竞争的哲学流派已经被简化为对于舒适和享乐的态度的不同——你会不会把汤送回去?但这一争执告诉我,伊壁鸠鲁的观点(虽然经过了删改,也没有完整的逻辑推导)仍获得了压倒性的胜利。伊壁鸠鲁主义关心人们的感受,而斯多葛主义注重价值等级。如果后者占了上风,那么在如今的语境中,坚忍就意味着崇高,享乐主义则不值一提。

hands down:
1.ifyou win something hands down, you win very easily
2. without any doubt

Epicureans did focus on seeking pleasure – but they did so much more. They talked as much about reducing pain – and even more about being rational. They were interested in intelligent living, an idea that has evolved in our day to mean knowledgeable consumption. But equating knowing what will make you happiest with knowing the best wine means Epicurus is misunderstood.

诚然,伊壁鸠鲁主义者注重追寻快乐,但他们同时也注重别的东西。他们有多关注享乐,就有多关注如何减少痛苦,如何更理性。他们对智慧生活感兴趣,这种观点到了今天演化成所谓的理性消费。但若将知道什么能带来最大的快乐等价于知道最好的酒,那就误解了伊壁鸠鲁。

The rationality he wedded to democracy relied on science. We now know Epicurus mainly through a poem, De rerum natura, or ‘On the Nature of Things’, a 7,400 line exposition by the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who lived 250 years after Epicurus. The poem was circulated only among a small number of people of letters until it was said to be rediscovered in the 15th century, when it radically challenged Christianity.

他所言的那种理性是和民主结合在一起的,并倚赖科学。我们现在了解伊壁鸠鲁,主要是通过罗马哲学家卢克莱修所写的一首7400行的长诗——《物性论》,他比伊壁鸠鲁小250岁。这首诗起初只是在一小群文化人中间传播,直到15世纪再次受到世人重视,激烈挑战了基督教权威。

译者注:

《物性论》 是罗马共和国末期的诗人和哲学家卢克莱修创作于公元前1世纪的哲理长诗。《物性论》一诗分为6卷,用抑扬六步格写成,其内容主要是阐明伊壁鸠鲁的哲学,尤其是原子论学说。

Its principles read as astonishingly modern, down to the physics. In six books, Lucretius states that everything is made of invisible particles, space and time are infinite, nature is an endless experiment, human society began as a battle to survive, there is no afterlife, religions are cruel delusions, and the universe has no clear purpose. The world is material – with a smidgen of free will. How should we live? Rationally, by dropping illusion. False ideas largely make us unhappy. If we minimise the pain they cause, we maximise our pleasure.

映射到现实中来,其中所述原则之现代,读之使人惊讶。在卢克莱修的六本书中,他都称万物是由看不见的粒子组成的,空间时间都是无限的,自然是一场无止尽的实验,人类社会脱形于求生的战役,没有来世,宗教是残酷的幻象,宇宙也没有清晰的目的。整个世界是物质的,只有少量自由意志残存。我们应该怎样生活?那就是理性地抛弃幻想。错误的观念是造成我们不快乐的主因。如果我们能将他们造成的痛苦最小化,就能将快乐最大化。

Secular moderns are so Epicurean that we might not hear this thunderclap. He didn’t stress perfectionism or fine discriminations in pleasure – sending back the soup. He understood what the Buddhists call samsara, the suffering of endless craving. Pleasures are poisoned when we require that they do not end. So, for example, it is natural to enjoy sex, but sex will make you unhappy if you hope to possess your lover for all time.

现代人是如此的“伊壁鸠鲁”以至于我们可能没听过这‘晴天霹雳’般的论断。伊壁鸠鲁本人并不强调完美主义或是快乐中的细微差别——比如把汤送回去。他明白佛教所说的“轮回”和无边贪欲所带来的痛苦。当我们想要快乐永无止境的时候,就会遭到反噬。比如说,享受性爱的快乐是很自然的事情,但如果你希望永远拥有自己的爱人,那么性将会使你不快乐。

Epicurus also seems uncannily modern in his attitude to parenting. Children are likely to bring at least as much pain as pleasure, he noted, so you might want to skip it. Modern couples who choose to be ‘child-free’ fit within the largely Epicurean culture we have today. Does it make sense to tell people to pursue their happiness and then expect them to take on decades of responsibility for other humans? Well, maybe, if you seek meaning. Our idea of meaning is something like the virtue embraced by the Stoics, who claimed it would bring you happiness.

很难想象,伊壁鸠鲁对于养育的态度似乎也很现代。他说,孩子带来的痛苦与他们带来的快乐相比,只多不少。所以你可能根本不想养孩子。当代那些选择丁克的夫妻正符合我们今天伊壁鸠鲁化的文化。跟大家说,要追求快乐,却期待他们花上数十年的时间来为他人承担责任,这说得通吗?好吧,也可能说得通,如果你要一个意义的话。我们所说的这种意义有点像斯多葛主义倡导的那种“美德”,它在斯多葛的语境下能够使你幸福。

Both the Stoics and the Epicureans understood that some good things are better than others. Thus you necessarily run into choices, and the need to forgo one good to protect or gain another. When you make those choices wisely, you’ll be happier. But the Stoics think you’ll be acting in line with a grand plan by a just grand designer, and the Epicureans don’t.

斯多葛主义和伊壁鸠鲁主义都明白,鱼与熊掌,不可得兼。因此,你必然要做无数选择,你也需要放弃一种去保护或获得另一种更好的东西。当你能够明智地做出选择,那你将会更快乐。只不过斯多葛主义者认为,你将依据正义且伟岸的造物主的计划行事,而伊壁鸠鲁主义者则不这么想。

As secular moderns, we pursue short-term happiness and achieve deeper pleasure in work well done. We seek the esteem of peers. It all makes sense in the light of science, which has documented that happiness for most of us arises from social ties – not the perfect rose garden or a closet of haute couture. Epicurus would not only appreciate the science, but was a big fan of friendship.

作为俗世中的现代人,我们追求短期的快乐并在完满完成工作的过程中获得更深刻的愉悦。我们也寻求他人的尊重。科学成果表明,我们大多数人获得的快乐都源自社会关系,而非“完美玫瑰园”或是装满高定的衣柜。伊壁鸠鲁不仅崇尚科学,还乐于发展友谊。

couture: clothes that a famous designer makes for individual customers, or the design of these clothes

The Stoics and Epicureans diverge when it comes to politics. Epicurus thought politics brought only frustration. The Stoics believed that you should engage in politics as virtuously as you can. Here in the US where I live, half the country refrains from voting in non-presidential years, which seems Epicurean at heart.

在政治观点上,斯多葛主义者和伊壁鸠鲁主义者有所分歧。伊壁鸠鲁认为政治只会带来沮丧。斯多葛主义认为,人们应该尽可能热心地参与到政治中去。在我所居住的美国,一半人口不在非大选选举年投票,这看起来很伊壁鸠鲁。

Yet Epicurus was a democrat. In a garden on the outskirts of Athens, he set up a school scandalously open to women and slaves – a practice that his contemporaries saw as proof of his depravity. When Jefferson advocated education for American slaves, he might have had Epicurus in mind.

但伊壁鸠鲁是个民主主义者。在雅典城郊的花园里,他在争议中建立起对女性和奴隶开放的学校,这在同时代的人眼里是伊壁鸠鲁堕落的证明。当杰斐逊呼吁美国奴隶的教育权时,他也许脑子里想到了伊壁鸠鲁吧。

I imagine Epicurus would see far more consumption than necessary in my own American life and too little self-discipline. Above all, he wanted us to take responsibility for our choices. Here he is in his Letter to Menoeceus:

我觉得伊壁鸠鲁在我过的这种美国式生活中会看到远大于需求的消费,也几乎看不到自律。总的来说,他希望我们为自己的选择负责。他在《致美诺西斯的信》中写到:

For it is not drinking bouts and continuous partying and enjoying boys and women, or consuming fish and the other dainties of an extravagant table, which produce the pleasant life, but sober calculation which searches out the reasons for every choice and avoidance and drives out the opinions which are the source of the greatest turmoil for men’s souls.

我所说的快乐是指身体无病痛,灵魂无搅扰,而不是通宵达旦的狂饮和寻欢作乐,更不是在豪华的餐桌上享用山珍海味、满足口腹之欲的所谓快乐;快乐是一种清醒的理性,它探究每次选择和规避背后的缘由,把致使灵魂陷入混乱的那些观念过滤出去。

Do you see the ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a tough research project and kick yourself when you’re glum? You’re Epicurean. We think of the Stoics as tougher, but they provided the comfort of faith. Accept your fate, they said. Epicurus said: It’s a mess. Be smarter than the rest of them. How modern can you get?

你是否将“追求幸福”视作一项艰巨的研究课题?在你闷闷不乐时是否自责不已?是的话,那你就是一名伊壁鸠鲁主义者。我们觉得斯多葛学派更强硬,但他们也给人以信仰的慰藉。他们说,接受命运的安排。伊壁鸠鲁说:命运就是一团乱麻。可得比其他人都机灵点。那么问题来了,作为现代人的你,有多伊壁鸠鲁呢?

原文链接:

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-epicurean-ideas-suit-the-challenges-of-modern-secular-life

👇

点评

在和朋友的每日聊天中,我们的爱情和生活观念逐渐发生了巨变,衍生出很多不一定正确,但的确更加宽阔包容的“非正常”观点。它们并无意为某些不好的人或事正名,只是若将男男女女都放在人世间这张大网里,谁都有自己的考虑和缘由,可能是个人的,也可能是社会的。伟大哲学家伊壁鸠鲁在文章里关于“性”的观点就给我这样的感觉,他邀请我们同自然人性(占有欲)做对抗,不要无视同你相处之人内心的想法,要善待与你相处之人。可以说,鲁哥真的是洞察人心了。不仅是爱情,关于快乐与物质、精神与朋友,他的论断也仿佛是采访了数百位被“996”、“007”按在水泥地上摩擦的现代男女后,得出的当代社畜心灵实录。

“大多数人都不知道怎样使自己幸福,因为他们觉得幸福很简单,约等于爱情、金钱、口腹之欲等等。……而你真正需要的,可能是住在乡村里,就着几片芝士、一些衣物、几本哲学书,还有在走廊等你的好朋友。”

2019年8月24日

唐萧

👇

了解我们:关于取经号

回复关键词PDF,下载PDF版本

回复关键词目录,查看目录

微信公众号:取经号

微博:取经号JTW

网站:qujinghao.com

每一个社畜都需要一个鲁哥

Be First to Comment

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注