沉思录的头像

怎么样成为一个温润如玉的谦谦君子?

浏览 333


这个真的很难讲,毕竟因素太多。

简单说说,我认识的同龄人中能达到温润如玉这个标准的一些共同点。

gentlewoman的头像

有什么新奇有创意的玩具推荐?

浏览 199


谁说玩具只有小孩子可以玩,与其怀念童年,不如勇敢地释放自己的天性,踏入玩具大坑。不要觉得这种事情很幼稚,有些玩具真的是长大了才可以玩。

1.兵人

兵人最开始以军事题材为主,是由孩之宝公司出的,但是近些年会与电影合作,出一些有意思的款。所以在一定程度上,兵人已经不只是一种玩具,更多人把它当成爱好来收藏。

Ilaria的头像

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK(三) / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

浏览 146


fore

对于社会学研究的兴趣起源于在英国上学的日子,也深刻了解中国对于这一门科学研究社会的方法起步有多晚。社会学在中国貌似离生活很远,像束之高阁的学术研究,但是它却是能和哲学、心理学等构成人认知世界的基础框架。这篇来自一本德国优秀的杂志《032c》中关于社会学家的采访,我们将它拆成了三期为大家提供这篇完整的采访。本次为第三辑(最后一辑),关键词——政治,内心凶手,幸福及未来。

 

它和香水和气味无关,却和自我认知以及认知世界有关。

 

回顾第一辑及第二辑,请直接点击以下链接——

 

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK(一)

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK(二)

 

 

 

  POLITICS  

Q032c

 

今天的权力和政治,在你看来破裂了。它是怎么发生的,这意味着什么?

半个多世纪前,国家政府仍然是最高的机构。主权的是——经济、军事和文化。现在不再如此。

 

这和之前的不同吗?我们为什么不再相信政府?

七十年代,政府不受欢迎是因为它无法履行其承诺。福利无法固定。政府没有足够的资源,人们累了,厌倦了政府决定一切,且剥夺了他们的自由。但是有一个奇迹:自由市场。“撤销管制,私有化。我们相信市场的无形之手,一切都会好的。”这是当时的社会思考。

 

如果不是之前发生过经济危机,这种信任肯定会被这次的金融危机彻底粉碎。

信用体系的崩溃和2007年到2008年发生的银行危机与1930年代和1960年代不同,我们不再相信政府,或者市场。这就是为什么我称这一时期为“过渡期”,这是意大利哲学家安东尼奥·葛兰西发明的现代词汇。他定义了过渡期,意思是当前做事方式不再正常运行,但是新的替代品尚未发明。今天我们生活在这样一个时期。

 

 

这使得某个行业因此受益。那我们要如何找到出路?

我们知道什么是我们不想要的,也逃避那些不能失效之物。但是对要去的地方我们仍然一无所知。最近社会学家Benjamin Barber出版了《如果市长统治世界》一书,这个煽动性的标题十分有趣。Barber的想法很简单。这些改变如果仅以国家水平执行是不够的,“生活政治”也是如此。政府出现之时,正是获得独立武器之时。但我们今天的问题是,我们彼此依赖,领土和主权是无法相互依赖就可以解决的问题。“生活政治”也是如此,个人为社会问题承担责任。这个世界范围内的问题当然不能以这种方式得到解决,因为无论是你还是我,即使是超级富豪,都没有足够的资源这样做。

 

THE MUEDERER INSIDE US

 

在《现代性和大屠杀》书中,你提出了挑衅性的观点——大屠杀是现代性的产物,而并非德意志民族主义特有。所以今天奥斯威辛现象仍然有可能发生,如果是这样,哪些情况下会发生?

现代社会并非一个种族灭绝的时代,但能以现代方式简单去执行,比如分类化的大规模杀戮。由于工厂技术创新和官僚机构,特别是认定世界可以改变,甚至颠倒的野心,人们不再需要接受那些在中世纪欧洲坚信不疑的想法——上帝的创造禁止人类干预,即使某些东西人类也不喜欢。而在过去,你不得不接受它。

 

我们可以完全按照希望的重塑世界。

出于同样的原因,现代也是毁灭的时代。改进和完善的需求呼吁我们去消灭那些被认定不可能适应完美事物的人。破坏就是创造新事物。所有不完美的毁灭都是实现完美的条件。这方面尝试中脱颖而出的是纳粹和共产党。他们都试图一劳永逸地消灭每一个不受监管的,随机的,违抗的或者讲究人(之为人)的条件(conditio humana)的部分 。

 

但早期的人类,比如十字军东征的时候,是以上帝的名义犯下谋杀吗?

现代人的野心是让世界为我们所管理。现在,我们正在掌舵,不是自然,不是神。上帝创造了世界。但现在他离开了消亡了,我们必须管理世界,更新一切。欧洲犹太人的毁灭只是大项目中的一部分:所有人被德国人重新安置——这一项巨大的事业,令人眼花缭乱,也十分之傲慢。一个使其成为现实的关键因素现在没了:极权(total power)。这只能在俄罗斯共产主义和纳粹德国出现。在极权较少的国家像意大利墨索里尼,或西班牙佛朗哥,是不可能的。他们缺乏这个因素。上帝帮助我们,情况也一直如此。

 

国家社会主义性质的项目通常被理解反了——认为这回到了野蛮,反抗现代性,反对现代社会核心原则,而不是作为现代社会的果实出现。

这是个误解。源于这样一个事实——共产主义者们如此极端表现了这些原则,激进无情,准备好了抛弃任何疑虑。其实共产主义者的事业是其他人也想完成的,但其他人没有下决定,也足够无情——我们今天在做的事,是以不那么壮观与不那么令人反感的方式去完成的。

 

你的意思是?

人类逐步疏远,我们将继续参与到人机交互自动化中。距离疏远和自动化带来的最重要的影响是进步,这或许不可阻挡,我们不再有道德上顾虑,行动更为自如。

  HAPPY  

 

在《生活的艺术》一书中,你谈到了幸福,古代哲学家们生活中的主题。现代,幸福已成为一件需要力求之事。

这始于1776年美国独立宣言,宣称“生命,自由和追求幸福的权利”是不可剥夺的天赋人权。当然,人类总是倾向于幸福状态,而非不幸。追求幸福是进化赋予我们的。否则,我们仍会坐在洞穴,而不是这些舒适的扶手椅上。但直到现代,每一个人才开始有权利用自己的方式追求幸福。这标志着现代的开始。

 

 

但今天要获得幸福,似乎并不比在罗马时期,塞内加生命哲学的时代,卢克莱修,马可·奥里利乌斯和埃皮克提图的时期容易。对你个人而言幸福意味着什么?

歌德在我现在的年龄时(89岁),被问到是否有着幸福的一生。他回答说:“是的,我有着非常幸福的一生,但是我想不起任何一个快乐的星期。”这是一个非常明智的答案。我的感受是一样的。在他的诗歌里,歌德还说过,没有什么比长期晴天更令人沮丧的。幸福不是生活中竞争和困难的替代物。它的替代物是无聊。如果没有任何问题需要解决,没有偶尔超过我们的能力的挑战需要去面对,我们会变得无聊。无聊是一种最普遍的人类苦难。幸福和我看到西格蒙德·弗洛伊德一样——不是一种状态而是一个时刻,一个瞬间。当我们克服逆境和不幸时我们感到了幸福。当我们脱下一双紧脚的鞋,我们感到开心放松。持续幸福是很可怕的,仿若一场噩梦。

 

你说我们都是生活的艺术家。生活的艺术是什么?

尝试不可能的事。了解自己是自我创作的产物。像画家或雕塑家一样去面对那些几乎不可能完成的任务。设定目标,超越当下的可能性。基于现有的能力,达成所有事的做事标准。不确定性是我们存在的生存环境。即使是将它扭转的一丝希望,也是我们追求幸福的推动力。

 

你不仅从理论解释了“固定”到“流动”现代的过程,你也亲身经历过。年轻的时候你想要什么?

作为一个年轻人,我和许多同龄人一样, 受到萨特生命项目(aprojet de la vie)的影响。为生活设定目标朝着这个理想,走最快最直接的道路。当你决定了你想成为什么样的人,然后有成为这个人的方式方法。每一种活法,都有一些我们必须遵循的规则,一些必须掌握的特质。从开始到结束,甚至在我们开始旅程之前,一切如萨特所设想的那样,沿着定好的路线一步一步向前。

  THE FUTURE  

 

在当代社会你的地位可以说十分重要,但你也不时关注着当年曾在其中风光过的马克思主义阵营。

我发现安东尼奥·葛兰西(意大利共产党创始人),之后从马克思主义阵营光荣退出。但我从未成为同其他人一样的反马克思主义者。我仍然从从马克思主义学到了很多。我坚持着一个社会主义思想,那就是社会好坏应该以它最弱小群体的生活质量来作评定。

 

另一方面,你也是一个悲观主义者。新资本主义的力量如此之大,其他的选择余地很小。这不是个令人失望的理由吗?

一次在我演讲之后,观众举手问我为什么如此悲观。只有当我谈论欧盟时,人们问为什么我这么乐观。乐观主义者相信这个世界上所有最好的词汇。悲观主义者则担心乐观主义者是对的。我不属于这两个派系。这里我将自己归为第三类:希望者。

 

这和你欣赏米歇尔·维勒贝克(Michel Houellebecq)相符吗,他也许是当今最悲观的作家了?

我喜欢Houellebecq是因为他的锐眼,他观察入微,善于发现并推断事物内在潜力。他的《一个岛的可能性》一书,是迄今为止的关于反乌托邦管制,支离破碎和流动现代社会个性化话题最深刻的思考。他对一切持怀疑态度,不抱希望,为自己的观点找到了丰富的证明素材。我不完全同意他的观点,但也很难反驳。这个反乌托邦可以与奥威尔的《1984》相比。奥威尔写的是关于他这一代人的恐惧,而Houellebecq描述的是如果我们继续这样将会发生些什么。最后我们将会进入孤独、分离和毫无意义的生命阶段。

 

 

我们的希望在哪?

在Houellebecq的描述中,我们丢失了非常重要的东西。政治上的无能为力和个人的无力感并不是目前阴郁前景唯一的罪魁祸首,也正因为如此,当前状态不排除有逆转的可能性。悲观主义——是被动,无为,因为认为没有什么能被改变。但我并非被动之人。我写书,思考,我热情参与。我的角色是警告人们这些危险并且要尝试着去做些什么。

 

 

 

End......

 

 

原文载于《032C》第29期,2015/2016 Winter

 

 

 

 

ORIGINAL English Script  

 

POLITICS

Power and politics, you argue, have fallen apart today. How did it happen to be so, and what does that entail?

When I studied more than half a century ago, the nation-state was still the supreme institution. It was sovereign – economically, military, and culturally. That’s no longer the case.

 

Why do we no longer believe in the state?

In the 1970s, the state became unpopular because it wasn’t able to live up to its promises. The welfare state couldn’t be fixed. It didn’t have enough resources, and people were tired and fed up with the state deciding everything and depriving them of their freedom. But there was a miracle looming on the horizon: the free market. “Let’s deregulate, privatize. Let’s trust the invisible hand of the market, and everything will be fine.” That was the thinking.

 

If it wasn’t already damaged before, this trust was definitively shattered by the most recent financial crisis.

The collapse of the credit system and the banks in 2007–08 is different from the crises of the 1930s and 1960s in the sense that we no longer believe in the state, or in the market. That’s why I call this period an interregnum, in the modern sense of the word as employed by the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci. He defined the interregnum as a period in which the current ways of doing things no longer work properly, but new alternatives have not yet been invented. We’re living in such a period today.

 

And how can we find our way out of this?

We know what we don’t want and we run away from things that don’t work. But we don’t yet know where we’re running to. A recently published book by the sociologist Benjamin Barber with the provocative title If Mayors Ruled the World is very intriguing. Barber’s idea is simple. The changes that are necessary cannot be carried out at the state level, or the level of “life politics.” When the nation-state emerged, it was an instrument for gaining independence. But our problem today is that we all depend on one another, and the sovereign territorial state is incapable of tackling interdependent problems. That is also true of “life politics,” which saddles the individual with the responsibility for social problems. Problems at the planetary level certainly can’t be solved in this way, because neither you nor I – and not even the super rich – have the resources to do so.

 

 

   THE MUEDERER INSIDE US  

In your book Modernity and the Holocaust, you advocate the provocative thesis that the idea of exterminating human beings on an industrial scale is a product of modernity – not specifically of German nationalism. So would Auschwitz still be possible today, and if yes, under which circumstances?

The modern age is not an era of genocide, but has simply enabled modern ways of carrying out such categorical mass killings. Thanks to innovations like factory technology and bureaucracy, but especially thanks to the ambition that the world can be changed, even turned upside down. People no longer have to accept the idea, as believed in medieval Europe, that God’s creation forbade people from meddling, even if something was not to their liking. In the past, you simply had to endure it.

 

We can remake the world exactly as we wish.

For the very same reasons, the modern age was also an era of destruction. The striving for improvement and perfection called for obliterating countless numbers of people deemed unlikely to be accommodated in the perfect scheme of things. Destruction was the very substance of the new. The annihilation of all imperfections was the condition for achieving perfection. The attempts that stand out from the rest in this regard were the projects undertaken by the Nazis and the Communists. Both sought to eradicate once and for all every unregulated, random, and control-resisting element or aspect of the conditio humana.

 

But people in earlier eras, such as the time of the Crusades, committed murder in the name of God?

The ambition of the modern age is to bring the world under our own management. Now, we are at the helm, not nature, not God. God created the world. But now that He is absent or dead, we must manage it ourselves, make all things new. The destruction of European Jews was only part of a larger project: the resettlement of all peoples with the Germans at the center – a monstrous undertaking, as dizzying as it was arrogant. One element that was critical to making it a reality is fortunately now absent: total power. Something like this could only be carried out in Communist Russia, or Nazi Germany. In less totalitarian countries like Italy under Mussolini, or Spain under Franco, it wasn’t possible. This element was lacking. God help us that this will remain the case.

 

The National Socialist project is often understood as just the opposite – as a return to barbarism, as a rebellion against modernity, against the core principles of modern society and not as its fruition.

That’s a misunderstanding. It stems from the fact that these were such extreme manifestations of these principles, relentlessly radical and ready to cast aside any misgivings. National Socialists and Communists did what others also wanted to do at the time – the latter simply not having been determined and ruthless enough – and what we still do today, albeit in a less spectacular and less repulsive fashion.

 

What do you mean by that?

The distancing of human beings and the automation of human interaction, which we continue to engage in. The most seminal effect of progress in the technology of distancing and automation is the progressive, and perhaps unstoppable, liberation of our actions from moral scruples.

  HAPPY  

In your book The Art of Life, you talk about happiness, a subject addressed by the life philosophers of antiquity. In the modern era, happiness has become a thing to be chased after.

It started with the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, which proclaims “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as inalienable, God-given human rights. Of course, human beings have always tended to be happy rather than unhappy. The pursuit of happiness was endowed in us by evolution. Were that not the case, we would still be sitting in caves instead of these comfortable armchairs. But the idea that each and every one of us has the right to pursue it in our own way has only existed since the modern era. The proclamation of a general human right to individual happiness marked the start of the modern age.

 

But it is seemingly no less difficult to attain happiness today than during Roman times, the era of the life philosophy of Seneca, Lucretius, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus. What does happiness mean to you personally?

When Goethe was around my age, he was asked if he had a happy life. He responded, “Yes, I have had a very happy life, but I can’t think of one, single happy week.” This is a very wise answer. I feel exactly the same way. In one of his poems, Goethe also said there isn’t anything more depressing than a long stretch of sunny days. Happiness isn’t the alternative to struggles and difficulties in life. The alternative to that is boredom. If there aren’t any problems to be solved, no challenges to be met that occasionally exceed our capabilities, we become bored. And boredom is one of the most widespread human afflictions. Happiness – and here I see eye-to-eye with Sigmund Freud – is not a state but a moment, an instant. We feel happy when we overcome adversity and misfortune. We take off a pair of tight shoes that pinch our feet and feel happy and relieved. Continuous happiness is dreadful, a nightmare.

 

We are all artists of life, you say. What is the art of living?

Attempting the impossible. Understanding ourselves as the product of our own creation and making. Acting like a painter or sculptor and confronting tasks that can scarcely be accomplished. Setting objectives that exceed our own possibilities at the moment. Attaching standards of quality to all the things we do – or could do – that lie above our present capabilities. Uncertainty is the natural biotope of our existence. Even if the hope of transforming it into the opposite is the driving force behind our pursuit of happiness.

 

You not only theorized about the transition from “solid” to “liquid” modernity, but you also experienced it first hand. What did you want when you were young?

As a young man, like many of my contemporaries, I was influenced by Sartre’s idea of aprojet de la vie. Create your own project for life and move toward this ideal, taking the shortest and most direct path. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and then you have the formula for becoming this person. For each type of life, there are a certain number of rules we have to follow, a number of characteristics we must acquire. From beginning to end, as envisioned by Sartre, life proceeds step by step along a route that is determined in its entirety before we even start on the journey.

 

  THE FUTURE  

You are very critical of our contemporary society, and from time to time glimpses of the Marxist you once were come shining through.

I discovered Antonio Gramsci, whose philosophy granted me an honorable discharge from Marxism. But I never became an anti-Marxist like many others. I learned a great deal from Marx. And I am still attached to the socialist idea that a society should be measured by the quality of life of its weakest members.

 

On the other hand, you’re also a pessimist. The power of the new capitalism is so great that there’s very little room for an alternative. Is that not cause for despair?

After my lectures, members of the audience have been known to raise their hands and ask why I’m so pessimistic. It’s only when I talk about the European Union that people ask why I’m so optimistic. Optimists believe this world is the best of all words. And pessimists fear the optimists are right. I don’t belong to either of these two factions. There is a third category in which I count myself: the one of hope.

 

How does this fit with your admiration of Michel Houellebecq, perhaps the most depressing writer of the present day?

I like Houellebecq because of his sharp eye and his knack for detecting the general in the specific, to uncover and extrapolate its inner potential, as in his The Possibility of an Island, the most insightful dystopia to date of a deregulated, fragmented, and individualized society of liquid modernity. He is very skeptical and devoid of hope and provides many reasons for his assessment. I am not fully aligned with his position, but I have a hard time refuting his arguments. It is a dystopia that can be compared to Orwell’s 1984. Orwell wrote about the fears of his generation, while Houellebecq describes what will happen if we go on like this. The last stage of loneliness, separation, and the meaninglessness of life.

 

Where does hope remain?

Something tremendously important is missing in Houellebecq’s portrayal. The powerlessness of politics and the powerlessness of the individual are not the only culprits to blame for the bleakness of the present outlook, and precisely because of this, the current state of affairs doesn’t preclude the possibility of a reversal. Pessimism – that’s passivity, doing nothing because nothing can be changed. But I’m not passive. I write books and think and I’m passionately engaged. My role is to warn people about the dangers and to do something about it.

相关阅读:

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK() / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK() / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

LOVE, FEAR & THE NETWORK() / 爱、恐惧&网络 透过89岁社会学家的镜子观照这一代人

 

Tags: 

页面

订阅 态度网 RSSQ&A ON PERFUME | 香水香氛常见知识问答 | 前往
2016 最新表评 | 持续更新 | 前往

相关阅读

关于手表 关于手表那些事儿
关于红酒
关于搭配
关于香水
微信关注我们