在有限的生命见证无限的自己 | 余世存杂记111

摘要：一个做生意的朋友评论一个文化人，我提醒他要有了解之同情，他说他论理不论人。我不得不代为回应，我直接说他在某事上无知，在某个判断上跟事实不合，对自己一代人的观念缺乏反思……我们私下聊了很多，他攻我守，他一再证明自己看到了那个人的缺点，我也一再证明他看到的跟他的结

一个做生意的朋友评论一个文化人，我提醒他要有了解之同情，他说他论理不论人。我不得不代为回应，我直接说他在某事上无知，在某个判断上跟事实不合，对自己一代人的观念缺乏反思……我们私下聊了很多，他攻我守，他一再证明自己看到了那个人的缺点，我也一再证明他看到的跟他的结论是两码事，我从未跟人说过这么多的重话，我甚至说你这样的言行让我想到王小波笔下会缝扣子的傻大姐，到处炫耀自己会缝扣子。我以为他多少会考虑我的意见，结果不到半天就看到他在朋友圈发了自己的评论，依然是显示他所谓的理中客，以至于平时尊敬他的朋友不以为然，说有失厚道。这件事让我难过，我想到这个朋友或大部分中年人，包括我自己，是否都是这样，用某种铠甲防护自己，外界的风雨阳光跟他没有关系，他对这个世界的指指点点，在别人眼里不过是刻毒、自私、自以为是的中年人。

商友议一文人，吾劝其存了解之同情，吾劝其当有“了解之同情”，彼则曰：“吾论理不论人。”吾不得已，代为辩之，直曰其于某事无知，于某断不合实，于己辈之见乏自省……私语既久，彼攻吾守，彼力证窥彼之短，吾力证所见与断乃二事。吾未尝与人言重若此，甚谓君之言行，令吾思王小波笔下缝钮痴女，遍炫其技。吾意其或纳吾言，不意半日内见其发于朋侪圈，犹标榜所谓理中客，素敬之友皆不谓然，斥为失厚。此事怆然，念此友或众中年，含吾自身，岂皆如是？披甲自护，外间风雨晴阳漠然无涉，其指点世相，于人目下不过刻毒、自私、自是之中年耳。

A business friend commented on a cultural figure. I reminded him to approach with empathetic understanding, but he insisted he judged ideas, not people. I had to respond directly: I told him he was ignorant on certain matters, his judgment didn’t align with facts, and he lacked reflection on his generation’s biases... We debated privately—he attacked, I defended. He repeatedly proved he saw the person’s flaws; I repeatedly proved his observations didn’t justify his conclusions. Never had I spoken so harshly to anyone—I even said his behavior reminded me of the foolish woman in Wang Xiaobo’s stories who boasted everywhere about sewing buttons. I thought he might reconsider, but within hours he posted his critique on social media, still posing as "rational and impartial," to the dismay of friends who usually respected him. One called it uncharitable. This saddened me. I wonder if this friend—or most middle-aged people, myself included—wear such armor: shielding themselves from the world’s storms and sunshine, their criticisms appearing to others merely as the venomous, selfish arrogance of aging.

一个年轻朋友问，我们对社会名流的私生活指指点点，他们的人设一旦崩塌就被“社死”，但我们却把世界交给杀人狂和神经病统治，一个人的战争让千百万人丧生，一个人的信口开河让千万亿财富灰飞烟灭，未来的人会怎么看我们？这让我想到一百年前，胡适说过，坏人在台上唱戏，好人在屋里叹气；好人不出手，坏人扛着世界走。胡适为此跟蔡元培等人联名发表宣言，提出“好人政府”的主张，希望高尚而优秀的人挺身而出，胡适们的意思就是在体制之外必须对人的德性有要求，历史上的“贤能政治”仍然是有意义的。

有年少友问曰：“吾辈于社会名流之私行，辄加指摘，其人设一倾，则谓之‘社死’。然杀人狂、癫狂者，反掌天下，一人之役，殒命百万；一人之妄言，亿万家财化为乌有。后世之人，将何以视我辈哉？”此言使吾忆及百年前，胡适尝言：“恶者登台唱戏，善者闭门叹息；善者不出手，恶者扛世而行。”胡适为此与蔡元培诸公联署宣言，倡“好人政府”之说，冀高洁贤能之士挺身而出。其意盖谓，于体制之外，必重人之德性，古之“贤能政治”，于今犹有深意焉。

A young friend asked: We nitpick celebrities’ private lives—when their personas collapse, they’re "canceled"—yet we hand the world to murderers and madmen to rule. One person’s war kills millions; one person’s reckless words obliterate trillions in wealth. How will future generations see us? This reminded me of Hu Shi’s words a century ago: "The wicked perform on stage; the virtuous sigh indoors. If the good don’t act, the wicked carry the world forward." Hu Shi, with Cai Yuanpei and others, co-published a manifesto advocating a "Government of Good Men," urging the noble and excellent to step forward. Hu Shi’s point was that beyond systems, we must demand virtue. Historical "meritocracy" still holds meaning.

现在的人不怎么喝酒？一个诗人朋友提供了一个答案，他说因为酒能乱性。过去人都知道是非，推崇朴素简单，性格平和，个性平常，性别简单，性观念也简单，但性格、个性和性的丰富复杂仍以潜意识的形式存在，它需要宣泄，所以需要喝酒。现在的人性多元复杂乃至变态都是常态了，所以不需要喝酒来成全。一个朋友不以为然，他说酒能乱性，人性是不能经受考验的，大部分人不自控，一旦喝酒，就原形毕露，所以不喝酒、少喝酒是为了压制自己的某种本能。

今之人何以鲜饮酒？有诗人友为之解曰：“盖酒能乱性也。昔人明是非，尚朴素，性平气和，性向常，性别亦简，然其性、情、欲之繁复，潜于幽微，必借酒以泄之。今之人性驳杂多变，乃至乖戾，已成常态，故无待于酒以成其事。”有友不以为然，曰：“酒能乱性，人性本难经考验。人多不自持，一饮则本性毕露。是故不饮或少饮者，盖所以抑其本能也。”

Why do people drink less now? A poet friend offered an answer: "Because alcohol unleashes hidden nature." In the past, people knew right from wrong, valued simplicity, had calm temperaments, ordinary personalities, straightforward genders, and simple views on sex—yet complexity in character, personality, and sexuality existed subconsciously and needed release through drinking. Now, diverse, complex, even perverse human nature is normalized, so alcohol isn’t needed for expression. Another friend disagreed: "Alcohol corrupts nature; human nature can’t be tested. Most lack self-control—drinking reveals their true selves. Abstaining or drinking less suppresses this instinct."

经济学家说人结婚的目的是分担生活的成本，夫妻两人的互助意义至关重要。有人就说，现在的夫妻很少相互成全，他们对对方的关心多半适得其反。比如妻子就吐槽丈夫不做家务，只会给她端茶递水，做表面工夫。丈夫则抱怨妻子不准他抽烟喝酒，表面关心他，其实像工头一样把他的社交和爱好管得死死的。结论是，现代夫妻的关系既失去了相爱的初心，又失去了互助的经济学理性。

经济学家云人之所以成婚，盖为分任生计之费，夫妇相扶，其义至重。然或曰：今之夫妇，鲜能相成，其相恤也，多适得其反。譬如妻怨夫不任家事，唯奉茶送水，徒为虚文；夫则憾妻禁其烟酒，名为关怀，实则如监工，严束其交游与好尚。是故今之夫妇，既失相爱之初衷，亦乏相济之计理矣。

Economists say marriage aims to share life’s costs, with mutual spousal support being crucial. Some argue modern couples rarely enable each other—their "care" often backfires. Wives complain husbands avoid chores, only offering superficial gestures like pouring tea. Husbands gripe wives forbid smoking/drinking under the guise of concern, yet control their social lives and hobbies like foremen. The conclusion: modern marriage has lost both the original intent of love and the economic rationality of mutual aid.

有人嘲笑说，在现实中，很多人还不能做一个合格的丈夫，合格的儿子，合格的员工，合格的老板，合格的朋友，甚至合格的普通公民，但是他们却能教川普怎样做一个合格的美国总统。更讽刺的是，现实中他越是不怎么合格，却越能给川普一些指导意见。有人反驳说，不能因为不会做菜就批不得厨师啊。

贝瑞·布里特画的特朗普

或或笑曰：世人于现实，多不能为良夫、为孝子、为勤职、为明主、为益友，甚或为良民，然则皆能教川普何为合宜之美国总统。更可讽者，其于现实愈不足，其于川普之指教愈多。或驳之曰：岂因不善烹，遂不得议厨者乎？

Some mockingly say that in reality, many people cannot be a qualified husband, a dutiful son, a competent employee, a capable boss, a good friend, or even a decent ordinary citizen—yet they feel entitled to teach Trump how to be a qualified U.S. President. What’s more ironic is that the less qualified they are in real life, the more advice they seem to offer Trump. Yet others retort: “Just because one can’t cook doesn’t mean they’re not allowed to criticize the chef.”

80年代文化热的时候曾经流行米兰·昆德拉的话，他的《生活在别处》、《生命中不能承受之轻》中有不少名言让我们记住，我印象深的一句话是，这个世界的合理性是回归的不存在，就是说这个世界是不可重复的，因为在这个世界里，一切都预先被原谅了，一切皆可笑地被允许了。其实我觉得从反面说重复性也是世界合理性的前提，今天的人更能明白自己不太可能是空前绝后的，无论是马云、马斯克，还是梁文锋，还是作家学者，只要诚实一点，都能找到他在历史上的镜像。普通人更不要以为自己特殊得绝无仅有，我们的绝望和仇恨、我们的痛苦和选择、我们的欲望和善意，都有跟我们同命运的前人示范过了。所以关键的问题，不是预先被原谅或被允许的问题，而是我们能不能超越，在有限的生命见证无限的自己，更重要，见证自己的圆满。

露拉姆，《生活在别处》

八十年代文化鼎盛之时，米兰·昆德拉之言甚行。其《生活在别处》《生命中不能承受之轻》诸书，多警句，令人难忘。吾尤记其一语曰：“世间之理，在于不复。”盖谓世界不可复，因其中万事万物，皆已先蒙宽宥，皆可笑而可许。然吾以为，反言之，重复亦为世界合理之本。今之人愈知己非空前绝后，无论马云、马斯克、梁文锋，抑或文人学者，但存诚心，皆可于史中得其镜像。常人更勿自矜独特，以为绝无仅有。吾辈之绝望与仇恨、痛苦与抉择、欲望与善意，前人亦尝同命，已为吾辈示范矣。是故，要害非在“已先被宥”或“可被许”，而在吾辈能否超越，于有限之生，见证无限之己，尤要者，见证己之圆满。

During the 1980s cultural fervor, Milan Kundera’s words were popular. Memorable lines from Life Is Elsewhere and The Unbearable Lightness of Being linger. One struck me: "The rationality of the world lies in the impossibility of return"—meaning the world is unrepeatable because within it, "everything is pardoned in advance and everything is cynically permitted." Actually, I believe repetition is conversely a prerequisite for the world’s rationality. Today, we better understand our unlikeliness to be unique—whether Ma Yun, Musk, or Liang Wenfeng, writers or scholars, all can find historical mirrors if honest. Ordinary people shouldn’t assume unparalleled specialness: our despair and hatred, pain and choices, desires and kindness—all were demonstrated by predecessors sharing our fate. Thus the key isn’t preemptive pardon or permission, but whether we can transcend, witnessing the infinite within our finite lives, and crucially, witnessing our own fulfillment.