爱与善的生活：核心美德的悖论
作为一位在圣母大学（University of Notre Dame）任教的哲学家，我开设了一门关于“善的生活”的广受欢迎的课程。在我的职业生涯中，我用哲学“腐蚀”了成千上万的青年。今晚，我希望用一个我认为是当今“善的生活”哲学中，最重要却又最不被欣赏的理念来“腐蚀”你们。
大多数重要的哲学家和几乎所有主要的世界宗教都将“爱”的美德置于“善的生活”的中心。但究竟如何实践这种美德呢？为了让我的学生思考这一点，我给他们布置了一个思想实验：假设我有一种药丸，服用后，你会对遇到的任何人产生爱。你会服用吗？我问过数千名学生，我得到的绝大多数回答，来自那些非常认真、非常虔诚的天主教一年级新生，都是：不。他们不会服用“爱所有人”的药丸。在听到他们的回答时，我开始对他们如何理解这种美德获得了一些洞察。
我听过的最深刻的回答之一，来自几年前我教过的一位19岁的男生。为了保护他的身份，我们称他为克里斯。当克里斯举手告诉我他为什么不服用“爱所有人”药丸时，我曾半期待他会说：“教授，失败者不配得到我的爱。”但他说的却相当深刻。他说：“教授，我晚上睡觉时，手机就放在卧室的另一头。有时它会在半夜响起。我醒来时会想：‘我的天，我妈妈出事了。’直到我拿到手机接听，知道她没事，我都会感到胃里一阵翻腾。对每个人都产生那种感觉，对我来说将是无法承受的。”克里斯的回答，触及了我们思考爱的方式。爱是“善的生活”必不可少的，但它也是有风险的、危险的，甚至可能令人难以忍受。
有趣的是，我们对爱的美德有如此复杂的思考，但当我们谈论恨与怨恨时，它们却显得轻而易举。我们可以绝对地培养它们。事实上，我们当前的政治环境和互联网，几乎是让我们每天自愿服用一颗“恨所有人”的药丸。许多哲学家正试图找到摆脱当前混乱局面的方法。在我所处的伦理学领域，目前最热门的话题之一是“文明”（civility）的美德。我们需要教人们如何“调低”他们的感受，如何进行更成熟的政治对话，以及如何与他们不同意的人共存。然而，在2400年的哲学史中，我找不到任何一位主要思想家认为文明是一种核心美德。文明，它是一种美德，但充其量也只是一种三流、第三等级的美德。（笑声）另一方面，爱，爱才是那深邃的魔法。我所研究的哲学家认为，爱的美德对我们的伦理和社会健康至关重要。棘手的问题在于如何让你自己去服用那颗“爱”的药丸。
Original English
As a philosopher at the University of Notre Dame, where I teach a very popular course on the good life. In my career, I have corrupted thousands of youth with philosophy. And tonight, I’m here to try to corrupt you with what I think is one of the most important, but least appreciated ideas in the philosophy of the good life today.
Most major philosophers and nearly every major world religion puts the virtue of love at the center of the good life. But what exactly does it mean to practice this virtue? To get my students thinking about this, I give them a thought experiment. Suppose I had a pill, and if you took it, it would cause you to experience love for absolutely anyone you met. Would you take it? I’ve asked this to thousands of students, and the answer I overwhelmingly get from my very earnest, very Catholic freshmen is: no. They wouldn't take the "love everyone" pill. And in hearing their answers, I start to get some insight into how they're thinking about this virtue.
One of the most profound answers I ever heard was from a 19-year-old guy I taught a couple of years ago. Let's call him Chris, to protect his identity. When Chris raised his hand to tell me why he wouldn't take the "love everyone" pill, I half expected him to say something like, "Professor, losers don't deserve my love." But instead, he said something that was actually pretty deep. He said, "Professor, I sleep with my cell phone across my bedroom at night. And sometimes it goes off in the middle of the night. And I wake up and I think, ’Oh my God, something’s happened to my mom.′ And I feel sick to my stomach until I can get to the phone and answer it and know that she's OK. Feeling that way about everyone, that would be unbearable for me." Chris's answer touches on how we think about love. Love is essential to the good life, but it's also risky, dangerous, it can even be downright unbearable.
One thing that's kind of funny is we have all these complex thinkings about the virtue of love, but when it comes to hate and resentment, those are easy. We can absolutely cultivate those. In fact, our current politics, the internet, it has us taking a "hate everyone" pill just about voluntarily every day. There are a lot of philosophers that are trying to figure out a way out of this current chaos. And in my field of ethics, one of the hottest topics right now is the virtue of civility. What we need to teach people is how to turn down their feelings, how to have more sophisticated political conversations, and how to coexist with other people who they disagree with. Now in 2,400 years of philosophy, I can think of no major thinker who thinks civility is a cardinal virtue. Civility, it's a virtue, but like a third tier, division-three virtue at best. (Laughter) Love, on the other hand, love is the deep magic. The philosophers that I study think the virtue of love is crucial for our ethical and social health. The tough thing is figuring out how to get yourself to take that love pill.
古代智慧：爱与连接的本质
为了让我们走上这条道路，我想向大家介绍两位最伟大的古代爱情哲学家。他们并非事事都意见一致，但他们的一些深刻见解，是我们从当前困境中走出来所需要恢复的。
第一位哲学家是马其顿的亚里士多德。他早在2400年前就开设了关于“善的生活”的课程。他的核心观点是，爱不仅仅是一种发生在你内心的感觉。当你爱一个人时，你将他们体验为另一个自我。爱有力量溶解你与另一个人之间的那层膜。当你爱某人，他们取得了伟大的成就或拥有非凡的美德时，亚里士多德认为，这些成就和美德会进入你的自我。当你爱某人，他们做了可耻的事情或拥有恶习时，那也会进入你。亚里士多德因此认为，你应该非常小心你爱谁。你不希望任何潜在的坏东西进入你的自我。
大约500年后，另一位伟大的哲学家登场了，他革新了这场辩论。这位就是拿撒勒的耶稣。很多人可能不认为耶稣是一位哲学家，但如果你阅读《福音书》，他一直在进行哲学辩论，其水平足以与古代希腊哲学家相媲美。我认为最精彩的例子出自《路加福音》。耶稣被一位犹太伦理学家问了一个问题。犹太教中“善的生活”的核心是爱上帝和爱人如己。那位伦理学家问耶稣，这意味着什么？耶稣以一个思想实验回应：有一天，一个人正从耶路撒冷前往耶利哥的路上，一些强盗袭击了他，剥光了他的衣服，拿走了他所有财物，并将他打得奄奄一息。他们把他丢在路边等死。
有两个人路过，他们注意到倒在路边垂死的人，却无动于衷，径直走开了。第三个人，一个撒玛利亚人，走了过来。他看见那个人，内心深处涌起了情感。在《路加福音》中，我们看到的希腊词是“splagchnizomai”（肠子翻腾）。在古代世界，像爱这样的强烈情感，并不住在你的心里，而是住在你的肠道里。如果你想给某人制作一份受古代哲学启发的情人节礼物，你不会割下一颗心。你会真的割下一卷肠子，还有肝脏和肾脏送给他们。爱就住在那里。那位撒玛利亚人，他的爱发自他的肠胃。他停下来，帮助了那个人，并整夜照料他，直到他康复。
亚里士多德认为，连接我们与他人的，溶解那层膜的是对美德和成就的预期。但耶稣认为，溶解那层膜、真正连接我们与他人的，是脆弱性。而通过脆弱性与人连接的有趣之处在于，你可以与任何人做到这一点。我们可能没有一个人像倒在路边垂死之人那样遭受身体上的殴打，但我们都曾被生活击垮。我们内在都有某种程度的那个被打倒的人的影子，而这正是爱可以发生连接的地方。
你不必只听我的一面之词。我认为社会心理学中最有趣的研究之一，是30年前亚瑟·阿隆（Arthur Aron）进行的惊人实验。他证明了在不到一小时的时间里，他能让陌生人彼此相爱。实验是这样的：他将两人配对，让他们互相提问，这些问题要求他们越来越暴露自己的脆弱。问题从简单的开始，比如：“你想和谁共进晚餐？”最后则以“如果你发现你的哪位家人去世了，你会最感不安？”这样的问题结束。阿隆研究中的30%的参与者报告说，他们感受到的亲近感，可以与他们对最亲密的伴侣和最好的朋友的感受相媲美。脆弱性有能力促成这些连接。
我不知道你们怎么想，但我觉得，尤其是在过去十年里，我们似乎经历了一个我称之为“伦理便秘”（ethical constipation）的时期。（笑声）我们必须让我们的“肠子”再次动起来，而我们无法通过更好的政治讨论、更多的抽象概念或将彼此隔离开来做到这一点。我们必须学会连接，并且必须学会如何通过我们的脆弱性来实现连接。像克里斯这样的学生，我在圣母大学教过的那些学生，他们认为自己的“splagchnizomai”（肠子翻腾）让他们显得软弱。但我认为，这种发自我们内心的感觉，这种爱，这种连接，是我们走在通往“善的生活”道路上的最可靠的标志。谢谢大家。（欢呼和掌声）
Original English
So to get us on that track, I want to introduce you guys to two of the greatest ancient philosophers of love who don't agree on everything, but have some deep insights that we need to recover to get out of our current mess.
The first philosopher is Aristotle of Macedonia. He taught his course on the good life 2,400 years ago, and his big idea was that love is not just a feeling that happens inside of you. When you love another person, you experience them as another self. Love has the power to dissolve the membrane between yourself and another person. When you love someone and they achieve something great or they have extraordinary virtue, Aristotle thinks those achievements and virtues, they come into yourself. When you love someone and they do something shameful or they have vice, that comes into you. Aristotle thought for those reasons you should be super careful who you love. You shouldn't want any potentially bad stuff to come into yourself.
About 500 years later, another great philosopher comes on the scene and he innovates this debate. This is Jesus of Nazareth. Now a lot of people don’t think of Jesus as a philosopher, but if you read the Gospels, he is getting into philosophical disputes all the time that rival the ones the ancient Greek philosophers are having. The best one, I think, comes in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus gets a question from a Jewish ethicist. The core of the good life in Judaism is loving God and loving others as another self. And the ethicist asks Jesus, what does this mean? And Jesus responds with a thought experiment. One day this man is walking down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho when some robbers come upon him, they strip him naked, take all of his stuff and beat him within an inch of his life. They leave him to die by the side of the road. Two men walk by, they notice the man dying by the side of the road, and they're unmoved, they just walk on by. A third man comes around, a Samaritan, and he sees the man, and his guts move inside of him. The Greek word in the Gospel of Luke that we’re given is “splagchnizomai,” his guts churn inside of him. In the ancient world strong emotions like love, they didn't live in your heart. They lived in your intestines. If you wanted to make someone an ancient philosophy-inspired Valentine, you wouldn't cut them out a heart. You would literally cut them out a coil of intestines and like, a liver and a kidney and give it to them. That's where love lived. The Samaritan loved in his guts. And he stopped and he helped the man, he nursed him back to health all night.
Aristotle thought that what connects us with other people, what dissolves that membrane, is expectation of virtue and achievement. But Jesus thought, what dissolves the membrane, what really connects us with other people is vulnerability. And what's interesting about connecting with people on vulnerability is that you can do it with absolutely anyone. We might not all be physically beaten up, laying, dying by the side of the road, but we've all been beaten up by life. We all have some element of that beaten man inside of us, and that is where the love connection can happen.
You don't have to take my word for it. I think one of the most interesting studies in social psychology, 30 years ago, Arthur Aron did this amazing experiment where he showed that he could cause strangers to love each other in a lab in under an hour. And here was the experiment. He'd pair people up, and he would have them ask each other questions that required them to be increasingly vulnerable. It would start with simple questions like, who’s someone you’d like to have dinner with? And end with questions like, which member of your family would you be most disturbed to discover had died? People reported, 30 percent of participants in the Aron's study, reported feelings of closeness that rivaled how they felt towards their most intimate partners and towards their best friends. Vulnerability has the ability to cause these connections.
I don't know about you guys, but I feel like, especially in the last decade, we have been living through a period of what I would call ethical constipation. (Laughter) We have to get our guts moving again, and we're not going to be able to do that with better political discussions, more abstractions, separating ourselves from each other. We have got to learn to connect, and we've got to learn how to do it through our vulnerability. Guys like Chris that I teach at Notre Dame, they think that their splagchnizomai makes them weak. But I think that this feeling in our guts, this kind of love, this connection, it's the surest sign that we are on the road to the good life. Thank you. (Cheers and applause)