从浪漫迷思到治疗性关系:重塑现代爱情观 Big Think 2026-02-27

浪漫迷思:情感至上的陷阱与历史反思

我们普遍认为爱情至关重要,它渗透在流行歌曲和宗教信仰中,但我们常常忽略“爱”的真正含义——它关乎联结。爱既美好又复杂,尽管人类已在地球上探索许久,但对爱的理解仍处于萌芽阶段。许多人临终前仍会感叹未能完全领悟爱的真谛。人们最为关注的,是涉及亲密和性联结的浪漫之爱(Romantic Love: 两人之间亲密且包含性接触的联结)。虽然爱有多种形式,如对子女、动物或思想的爱,但当人们歌颂或哀叹爱情时,通常指的是与“灵魂伴侣”或“伴侣”之间的那种特殊情感。

回顾历史,伴侣的选择曾基于实用考量,而非情感契合。在大部分历史时期和世界各地,婚姻多由社会、家庭或村落安排,属于王朝联姻(Dynastic Marriages: 基于家族、政治或经济利益的婚姻)。例如,一方有犁,一方有牛,便被视为良配;或是公爵与公主的结合,被视为美满的联盟。彼时,情感兼容性并非主要因素,即使有泪水、悲伤和孤独,也无关紧要,因为关系的意义在于其他方面。然而,18世纪末,一场发源于英、法、德、意等地的浪漫主义(Romanticism: 强调个人情感、直觉和自由的文化运动)革命带来了巨变。浪漫主义的核心信条是:每个人应凭内心感受自由选择伴侣。这个理念听起来美好且解放,但两百多年来的实践证明,它却是一场灾难。在浪漫文化中,我们并未比王朝联姻时代更幸福。

问题在于,我们集体未能充分关注伴侣因“心之所向”而结合后将面临的重重困难。浪漫主义世界观的一大偏见是,如果爱情进展顺利,就应该顺其自然,遵循直觉(Instinct: 无需理性思考的自然冲动)。人们对直觉推崇备至,将爱描述为一种特殊的感觉,而非一系列思想或理性原则。你若有此感觉便有,没有便无,必须受其引导。甚至存在对语言的偏见,认为真爱无需多言,只需感受心跳。因此,音乐的地位远高于哲学,因为恋爱中的人更倾向于听情歌而非阅读哲学著作。这种观念认为情感应主导,理性则是幸福关系的敌人,因为它显得冷酷、算计、不浪漫。

许多事物被视为不浪漫,但我们应该质疑这种定义。如果浪漫主义的目标是追求一段可行的关系,那么谈论金钱、深入思考童年心理发展模式、或花大量时间考虑家庭和朋友的兼容性,这些真的是不浪漫的吗?在我看来,这些都是评估伴侣关系是否合适的必要考量。然而,在浪漫文化中,这些都被视为“不浪漫”。这种文化认为,好的伴侣关系应凭直觉形成,每个人都有一个灵魂伴侣,你会通过一种特殊的“心动”感觉认出TA,无需解释,甚至可以在两周内闪婚。它还宣扬伴侣之间应通过心灵感应而非语言进行深度交流,不应批评伴侣,而应无条件接受对方,不求成长或改变。因此,在浪漫文化中,伴侣抱怨“你试图改变我”被视为冒犯。

然而,如果回到公元前400年的古希腊雅典,古希腊人会说:“爱是一个教育过程,是情感的教育。”相爱之人理应指出彼此的不足,共同成长为更好的自己,而非停留在对现状的欣赏。这个过程应该是动态的:成为你可能成为的人,而非崇拜你此刻的模样。这在浪漫文化中听起来非常陌生,也正是当今关系如此艰难的原因。

Original English Source

My name is Alain de Botton. I'm a philosopher, psychotherapist and founder of the School of Life. Chapter 1 - Our Destructive Romantic Culture We know in theory that love matters a lot. It's in every pop song, it's the center of most religions. We sometimes lose sight of what that word actually means. It's really about connection. And it is one of the most beautiful and one of the most complicated of all phenomena. Even though we think we've been around on this planet for a long time trying to figure things out, I'd say we were still at the dawn collectively of making sense of this phenomenon we call love. And it's no surprise that most people will go to their deathbeds thinking, not quite sure I figured that side of life out. At least many of us will still be grappling with some of the complexities of love by the time time runs out on us. The most central kind of love that people are obsessed about, concerned about, is romantic love. That is the intimate connection between two human beings who have a sexual contact. It's worth saying that there are other forms of love. We can love our children, we can love animals, we can love ideas, we can love tables, chairs, clouds, all sorts of things. We are capable of many forms of love, but I'd say that when people sing about love and when they cry about love, it tends to be the love of one very special person we tend to call our soulmate, our partner. It used to be the case that when people found partners, they would do so according to fairly pragmatic considerations. In most nations and most parts of the world, for most of history, couples were formed not by the individuals themselves, but by the wider society, families, the village, the court. There were, if you like, dynastic marriages. You would get together with somebody because they had a plow and you had an ox and it seemed like a good match, or you were the Duke of Brabant and they were the Princess of Naples and that was seen as a wonderful union. So you got together for reasons that were nothing to do with emotional compatibility. There were a lot of tears, there was sadness, there was loneliness, but it didn't seem to matter because relationships were seen to be about something else. There was then a momentous change that occurs in, towards the end of the 18th century, starting in Britain, France, Germany, parts of Italy, a revolution in feeling that we now know as romanticism. And one of the central tenets of romanticism is that each individual should be left to decide on their partner by their own, the movements of their own heart. They should be left to decide for themselves. It's a beautiful idea, it's a very liberating idea, it should make a lot of sense. And we have been in the romantic age now for, you know, 200 years, perhaps shorter, perhaps a little longer, that kind of time period. And let's put it plainly, it's been a disaster. We're not any appreciably happier now in a romantic culture than we were in a dynastic culture, where marriages were made for dynastic reasons. Why? Because we have failed collectively to focus with enough intent on the difficulties that couples will have when they choose each other according to the movements of their own heart. Look, I think a really key prejudice of the romantic worldview is that if love is working well, it should be following instinct. There's been an enormous veneration, it must be worship of instinct. Love is described as a special feeling, not an asset of ideas, not a sense of rationally observable principles, but a feeling. You either have the feeling or you don't. You must be guided by your feeling. There's even a prejudice against language. You know, true lovers shouldn't talk too much. They should just feel the flattering of their own hearts. That's why music has a huge prestige, higher than philosophy. When we're in love, we don't want to read philosophical tracks, we want to hear love songs. That is to do with our sense that emotion should be guiding us, not reason. Reason is the enemy in the romantic worldview of truly happy relationships. If we follow reason, that's cold, it may be calculating, it's unromantic. And, you know, there are so many things that are considered unromantic. And I would love to train our audience. But every time something seems unromantic, question it. Is it truly unromantic if we define romanticism as the pursuit of a workable relationship? On that basis, is it unromantic to talk about money? Is it unromantic to think long and hard about childhood patterns of psychological development? Is it anti-romantic to spend a lot of time thinking about families and friends and compatibility at that level? All these things, in my view, belong to a truly adequate way of surveying whether a couple should be together. But I'm also aware that nowadays these things are considered very unromantic. To live in a romantic culture means to live in a culture that has a set of ideas about how good couples should form. They should be formed by instinct, that everybody has a soulmate, that you'll recognise your soulmate by a special, flattery feeling, that you shouldn't be asked to account for that feeling. You should simply go for it and marry in Vegas in two weeks if that's what seizes you. And that you should be able to communicate deeply with your partner without using language. Through that special medium of the heart, through the silence. Also that you shouldn't criticise your partner, that true partners should love each other for who they really are. Which means no desire to grow or change. You just accept someone. Couples in romantic culture will sometimes complain, "You're trying to change me." And this is seen as really offensive. It's like, "What? You complain to your friends. My partner's trying to change me." "Oh, what an awful person. It must be awful. You must get out immediately." If you went to an ancient Greek, if you went to Athens in 400 BC, and you said to an ancient Greek, "What is love? And where is the role of criticism?" They would say, "Love is a process of education. It's the education of emotion." And lovers should of course be able to pick each other up for things that they don't spot in one another. The whole process should be trying to develop into the best version of themselves, rather than simply staying stuck in an admiration for who they are today. The whole process should be dynamic. Become who you could be, not worship who you happen to be right now. All of this sounds very strange in romantic culture, which is why relationships are so difficult in our time. Let's remember that a person's life satisfaction is determined by up to around 70% by the quality of their personal relationships. A Martian hearing that statistic, visiting planet Earth, would think, "Well, clearly Earthlings, given the enormous role of love, will be spending 70% of their money and 70% of their educational time working out how on Earth this business of love works. Is that true?" We spend hardly any time rationally thinking about it. None of us are made to sit through classes in attachment theory, classes in apology, classes in listening, classes in communication. No, you know, physics is important, geography is important, don't get me wrong. But is there no time for this, given its role in our lives? Do we really want to leave this to chance? And the answer is yes. And why? Because we live in a romantic culture that sees something adverse in planning and thinking and reflecting too hard on the business of love. It's very deleterious and it's been a serious problem for humanity. One of the most powerful disseminators of romantic culture is art. And by art I mean all the leading artistic media. Film, definitely. You know, if you were learning about love from films, you would be very confused. And that's why many of us are confused, because films, and I include that television shows and other narrative forms, these things are hugely misleading. They simply do not show what a real relationship is like. I mean, probably you can count on one hand that the number of films that have accurately shown love, I think one of the most accurate representations of love is Richard Linklater's Before Trilogy, which ended up with Before Midnight. It's a wonderful reckoning really with the real complexities of love. But you know, most films are not that. Most films are blithe, are superficial, are not modest enough in showing us what's really going on between couples. It's also intimidated through music. And music constantly gives us little miniature stories about how love works. And you know, the music is terrific, but it's not accurate to what's going on. And it presses the wrong buttons. Poetry, no one really reads poetry nowadays. If they did, the problem exists in poetry too. So we have so much media around, and yet we're still so much strangers to ourselves. I would say that the single greatest, most misleading disseminator of ideas on love is culture and art. The problem is very heavily located there.

心理治疗的启示:童年脚本与依恋模式的深远影响

鉴于浪漫主义带来的诸多问题,我们亟需从王朝联姻时代(Dynastic Marriages Era: 婚姻由家族或社会利益主导的时期)和浪漫时代(Romantic Age: 婚姻由个人情感和直觉主导的时期)迈向一个全新的治疗时代(Therapeutic Age: 强调心理洞察和情感成长的关系模式)。这种治疗性关系的核心洞察力来源于长达120多年的心理治疗(Psychotherapy: 通过对话和技术帮助个体解决心理和情感问题的治疗方法)。心理治疗提供了对人类情感功能最复杂的理解,其基础是西格蒙德·弗洛伊德(Sigmund Freud: 奥地利精神病学家,精神分析学派创始人)及其后继者的理论。尽管弗洛伊德的许多观点已被修正,但其核心洞察——我们拥有无意识(Unconscious: 意识之外的心理活动,影响思想和行为),成年后的爱的方式受童年塑造,以及童年时期为自我保护而形成的防御机制(Defense Mechanisms: 心理用来应对焦虑、压力或不愉快情绪的无意识策略)会在成年后造成困扰——是毋庸置疑的。

我们每个人都是0到10岁之间漫长情感教育过程的产物。这个过程往往难以察觉,但我们都在无形中习得了复杂的情感语言(Emotional Language: 关于信任、善良、沟通、自我价值和对话等情感表达和理解模式)。就像学习语法语言一样,我们学会了如何信任他人、如何沟通、如何处理愤怒、害羞或赌气,以及如何表达重要的事情。这些情感语法主要源自我们的原生家庭(Families of Origin: 一个人成长过程中最初的家庭环境,通常指父母和兄弟姐妹),即父母或其他主要照护者。他们塑造了我们的情感语法,就像他们塑造了我们的语言口音一样,这种“情感口音”将伴随我们一生。例如,有人可能习得的“情感口音”是:所有男性都令人恐惧,所有女性都倾向酗酒,所有善良的人都略带施虐倾向,或者所有依赖的人都抑郁。不幸的是,许多人在童年时期习得了不理想的情感语言,并将其无意识地带入成年,导致我们不清楚自己的情感根源,也无法规划出明智的情感路线。

依恋理论(Attachment Theory: 心理学理论,描述人际关系中情感联结的形成和重要性)是理解关系成败的关键工具之一,由20世纪50年代英国的约翰·鲍尔比(John Bowlby: 英国心理学家,依恋理论创始人)和玛丽·安斯沃思(Mary Ainsworth: 美国发展心理学家,依恋理论重要贡献者)提出。二战期间,大量儿童与父母分离,被疏散到伦敦以外的家庭,这导致他们出现极度痛苦的行为,如尿床、易怒、厌食等。研究人员发现,这种情感依恋的破裂对下一代的伤害可能远超战争本身。基于此,他们成功促使儿童返回原生家庭,从而避免了一场更大的悲剧。这一事件促成了依恋理论的诞生。通过观察儿童与主要照护者的互动,研究者发现我们都与童年时期的照护者形成的故事紧密相连。依恋理论将人类行为模式分为不同类别,其中之一是回避型依恋(Avoidant Attachment: 一种依恋风格,个体倾向于避免亲密和情感依赖,以应对童年时期不稳定的照护)。

回避型依恋者通常在面对不稳定的照护者时,通过疏远和推开亲密来应对不安全感。据估计,约50%的儿童在成长过程中会经历照护者的某种程度的“失职”,因此,大约一半的人口都带有“依恋创伤”。回避型依恋者在关系变得“过于亲密”时会选择退缩,例如,在美好的几周后,他们可能会说“这感觉有点太强烈了”,然后找借口疏远。这并非他们不想要爱,而是他们对爱感到恐惧,因为童年时期的经历让他们觉得爱是危险的。当爱降临成人生活时,他们会无意识地确保爱不会成功,从而破坏自己拥有成功关系的机会。

这就像一个在集中营长大、长期食物匮乏的人,突然被带到盛宴前,反而会感到恐慌、恶心,甚至试图拒绝食物,因为他们已经习惯了情感上的匮乏,无法消化突如其来的“丰盛”。健康的爱对他们来说就像一块“浓郁的巧克力蛋糕”,难以承受。因此,当有人给予他们真挚的爱和美好的生活时,他们可能会接受,但最终却会逃离。这并非因为爱不够好,而是因为它“太好”了。对于那些习惯了糟糕关系的人来说,最大的威胁不是糟糕的关系(那反而让他们感到熟悉),而是良好的关系。

这种模式导致了可怕的循环:例如,一个童年时期父亲不稳定、暴力,母亲冷漠、缺席的人,长大后本应寻求弥补,找到渴望的爱。然而,当一个善良的伴侣出现,提供情感上的“家”时,他们起初或许能承受,但当爱真正可能成功时,他们反而会拿出“炸药”,炸毁关系的基础,回到那种更熟悉的痛苦中。我们需要明白,在爱中,我们并非寻求幸福,而是寻求熟悉感(Familiarity: 对某种情境或情感的习惯和安全感)。对许多人而言,幸福与熟悉感并非一体。最熟悉的感觉可能是未被恰当爱过,不确定自己的位置,或感到被威胁、被抛弃。这才是他们的“真家”。因此,他们会本能地被吸引到那些能重现这种熟悉感的关系中,比如酗酒者的子女倾向于选择酗酒伴侣,暴力父母的后代倾向于选择脾气暴躁的伴侣。

弗洛伊德(Freud)对此提出了一个重复强迫(Repetition Compulsion: 弗洛伊德提出的概念,指个体无意识地重复创伤性经历或模式的倾向)的乐观解释。他认为,我们重复创伤经历(如与暴力或酗酒伴侣复合)并非无意义地受苦,而是试图在成年后,用更成熟的资源去掌控童年时未能掌控的挑战。我们试图让酗酒伴侣戒酒,让情感疏远的伴侣开始沟通,弥补过去的缺失。弗洛伊德意识到,许多人只有在找到一个能反映其主要照护者问题的伴侣时,才能找到所需的“兴奋感”,因为这能唤起原始痛苦的共鸣。乐观之处在于,我们或许能通过这种关系来疗愈旧伤。但这并非总是奏效,有时我们也需要及时止损,认识到某种模式正在将我们推向毁灭,并学会自救。

Original English Source

Chapter 2 - Lessons on Love from Psychotherapy I think we need to split history into phases. The phase of the dynastic relationship where people would get together for dynastic and financial and family reasons. That ended. That's behind us. Then we moved into the Romantic Age, and that caused a lot of problems and it lasted 250 years or so. We need to draw a line under that. We need to move towards something that I call the therapeutic age. The age of the therapeutic relationship. What on earth is a therapeutic relationship? Let me try and explain. A therapeutic relationship begins with the insights of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy has been with us for 120 years or so. It is the most sophisticated understanding of how human beings function emotionally. It's based on the insights of Sigmund Freud and all those who come after him. It is not going away. Some people say, "Oh, that's... isn't that old hat? Wasn't Freud proved wrong?" Sorry, no, he wasn't. I mean, of course, many, many areas of Freudian thought are wrong, but the fundamental insight that we have and unconscious, that how we love as adults was shaped by our childhoods, that there are defences that we put in place to protect ourselves as children that cause difficulties for us as adults. This is indisputably true. And that's not going anywhere. All of us are the result of a very slow and long process of emotional education that took place between the ages of zero and ten. This is extremely hard to perceive. Most of us are like, "I never went to an emotional education school. I just grew up, you know, my parents lived in Idaho or Milton Keynes or Frankfurt or Yokohama." There's no sense that we've learned anything in particular. But my goodness, we have. All of us reach adulthood having learned very complicated languages of love and relationships. Languages that tell us whether a human being can be trusted, whether we are worth something, whether communication is good, what happens when somebody is angry, what happens when we are shy, what happens when we sulk, how do we tell someone something important? All of these things will have been imbibed in us. Let me give you a metaphor. Very few of us, I'd say none of us, remember what it was like to learn language, to learn to speak. And yet, most of us know how to speak. But it went in invisibly. While we were in the kitchen drawing butter cups or in the garden doing handstands, all of us will have learned incredibly complex patterns of language, of grammar. We have learned about the pluperfect. We have learned about the subjunctive without even knowing such things exist. We have learned tens of thousands of words and all sorts of ways of expressing ourselves without knowing a thing. I want to say that a similar process goes on at the level of emotional language. In the same ways we learn a grammatical language, we learn an emotional language. As I say, a language about trust, about kindness, about communication, about self-worth, about dialogue, etc. All these things that we take with us into adulthood, we learned, and we learned from one place in particular, our families of origin, our mother and our father, or whoever our caregivers happen to be. These people are immensely, immensely important in shaping our emotional grammar. In the same way as they shaped our linguistic grammar, I mean anyone who's had a parent with a regional accent of one kind or another will know that that sticks. You will pick up that regional accent from your parents and you will, in my stick with you, all of your life. Same thing goes on with, as it were, the regional accents of emotional intelligence. You may speak a regional accent where every man is extremely frightening, or every woman has a tendency towards alcoholism, or everyone who is kind is also slightly sadistic, or everyone who you depend on is also depressed. Now these are all very, very difficult languages to have been exposed to and to pick up on. Many of us, sadly, have come through childhood with suboptimal language acquisition, emotional acquisition, if you like, and we take that into adulthood unconsciously. We have no clue where we've come from, and because we don't know where we've come from, we don't know how to plot a sensible course. And I'm going to mention something very important, which is attachment theory. One of the most useful tools for working out why relationships work and why they don't was formulated by two researchers of near-genus, John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, two researchers working in the United Kingdom in the 1950s. They had been very marked by a phenomenon that took place in the 40s during the Second World War. In the Second World War, huge numbers of children were separated from their parents at a young age and were sent to families outside London to escape the German bombing of British cities. What researchers soon realized was that this was a catastrophe for the children. The children began to exhibit extremely distressed behavior. They would wet the bed, they would get very angry, they would not be able to eat. They would be in states of almost cataclysmic meltdown. Why was this? Materially, they were well looked after. Psychologically, emotionally, they were bereft. And researchers, this is one of the most moving stories in the history of the Second World War, researchers realized that if this carried on, this would do more damage for the next generation than any number of war dead, that the risks of German bombs were actually smaller than the risks of ruptured emotional attachment. And on that basis, these psychological researchers wrote to the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office and got the children transferred back into their homes in the cities of the United Kingdom. And thereby a great tragedy was averted. So that after the height of the crisis, children were returned to their birth families and looked after again by their closest figures of attachment. Why are we talking about this? Because this was the birth of attachment theory. From watching how children were around their close caregivers in childhood, it was discovered that all of us are, in a sense, tethered to a story that we first have in childhood around our caregivers. And the researchers in attachment theory began to divide human beings into categories, highlighting their characteristic ways of behaving around relationships. To give you a few of the categories, they identified something that we now know as avoidant attachment. Avoidant attachment is a way of relating to a troublesome and troubling caregiver who in some ways lets you down. And by the way, caregivers, it's estimated let down around 50% of children. So around half of the population of any nation you care to mention has got children wandering around with attachment wounds. It's an important statistic to bear in mind when you go on a date. You know, 50% chance you've got somebody with an attachment wound. That's not the end of the story. We can work with attachment wounds, but we need to know that those attachment wounds are there. That's how we're going to try and solve the problem by knowing that the problem is there. An avoidantly attached person is somebody who responds to the insecurities in their relationship with their caregiver by essentially moving away, by pushing away intimacy. The classic sentence that an avoidantly attached person will say to their partner after a few beautiful weeks, a few mini breaks, a few lovely times, they'll go, "This is feeling a bit too intense," and then they will withdraw in some way. They'll start causing a problem. They'll say, "Oh, I need to spend a weekend with my friends or my mother really wants to see me." They'll pull away from a relationship because it's getting too intense. And really what they mean is, "I'm so afraid of love, and the way that I deal with my fear of love is to pull away." So that is avoidant attachment, and we see it all over the place. Some of your viewers will be avoidantly attached. Some of your viewers will have recognized this with a partner that they had. It's not that the avoidantly attached person doesn't want love. They want love. They're just terrified of it. Why are they terrified of it? Because it didn't go well for them in childhood. And this is something that we need to really keep in mind. We've got a culture that thinks that everybody's looking for love. They're not. They're ostensibly looking for love, but they're just as busy pushing love away when it comes, running away from it, and making sure it doesn't succeed. Why? Because love is a threat. If you have grown up in an environment where love was not possible, where relationships between caregivers and children were not safe, you will have defended yourself against the risks of disappointment. You will have insulated yourself. And then when love comes your way in adulthood, what you will do against your knowledge, against your conscious knowledge, is make sure that love does not succeed. You will sabotage your own chances of a successful relationship. Let me give you a metaphor. Imagine that you've grown up in a prison camp. You were never fed, or the diet was very meager. You didn't have much food. And then suddenly, one day, the prison gates are opened, and you get to go to a banquet, and you get to eat anything you like. And what might be the response? Panic. You might make yourself sick. You might try and eat the food. You might even kill you, or threaten to kill you, because why? You cannot metabolize the goodness on offer, because you have learned to function with an emotionally restricted diet, an emotionally restricted diet where you've made do with very little. And so when there's a lot suddenly on offer, you panic, and you think this is too intense. You think that somebody who has been going with almost no food will think it's far too intense to eat a rich chocolate cake. And sometimes healthy love is like a rich chocolate cake, which we cannot bear. And some of your viewers will know the phenomenon whereby you offer somebody love. You love them, you feel that you want to give them a good life, you want to be a good partner to them, and they sort of accept it, and then suddenly they run away. And if there's a dynamite under it, this is a very common occurrence. What's going on? It's not that it's too bad, it's too good. And for some of us who had to get used to very poor relationships, the greatest threat is not a bad relationship. That's fine. It's a good relationship. And you get patterns, horrific patterns, where people have had an unstable and violent father, let's say, uncaring and absent mother, and you think that these people are going to get to adulthood, and they're really going to make it up for themselves. They're going to find the love they yearn for, and they're going to make it work. And what happens to them? Maybe a nice lover comes along. Someone kind offers them a home, as it were, an emotional home. And maybe at the beginning they can bear it. It's easier at the beginning. But then the problem starts setting in when it really becomes clear that love may work. That's when the traumatised attachment lover gets their sticks of dynamite out and starts to blow the foundations of the house up so that they can return to the suffering that feels more familiar. What you need to understand is that in love we don't look for what will make us happy. Absolutely not. We look for what feels familiar. For some people, happiness and familiarity are one. But for many of us, they are not. For many of us, what is most familiar is a sense of not being loved properly, a sense of not being sure where we stand, a sense that someone may threaten us, a sense that someone may abandon us. That is our true home. And if that's our true home, we will be guided with a kind of honing instinct to refine that, which is why you find again and again that the children of alcoholics do not head for sober partners. They head for people who are struggling with alcohol. Why the offspring of violent parents do not head for calm and kind partners. They head for people who are struggling with their temper. Now, what do we do about this? One optimistic story is to be found in the work of Sigmund Freud, who in many ways everything returns to him. He observed something which he called the repetition compulsion. He observed that human beings are not guided by a search for pleasure. They are guided by a search to repeat patterns, a repetition compulsion often of pain. And he proposed an ingenious and I think optimistic answer to this. He argued that what many of us are doing when we repeat traumatic experiences, for example, getting back together with a violent partner or an alcoholic partner, what we're really doing there is not simply suffering at infinite for no reason. What we're trying to do is to master a challenge that we couldn't master in childhood and we're trying to master it with the resources of adulthood. In other words, we're trying to get the alcoholic partner to stop drinking in a way that we couldn't when we were children. We're trying to get the distance emotionally and communicative partner to start to talk in the way that our mother or father didn't. We're trying to make it up in the present. And Freud realized that for many of us we wouldn't find the kind of excitement that we need until we locate a partner who does suggest that they suffer from the very problem that our crucial caregiver suffered from. Until we find a little bit of an echo of the original suffering. But the optimistic story is perhaps we can work with them in the relationship to heal the pain. It's a very optimistic story. It works sometimes and sometimes we may need to cut our losses. You know, love is not always about keeping going. Love is also sometimes about knowing that you are in a pattern and that pattern is driving you to destruction. And when that happens, it's also important to save, to know how to save yourself from shore destruction.

建立成功关系的行动指南:将爱视为一项技能

要建立成功的关系,我们需要一个行动指南(Playbook: 一套详细的策略和步骤),这听起来可能有些奇怪,因为我们常认为只需下载约会应用、穿上新衣就能找到伴侣。然而,将爱视为一种技能(Skill: 通过学习和实践获得的熟练能力)而非纯粹的情感,是至关重要的。就像攀登珠穆朗玛峰需要充分准备和装备一样,我们在进入爱情的“山脉”时,却常常缺乏足够的准备,然后因跌倒而责怪对方,认为没有找到“对的人”。约会应用固然有其作用,但一旦找到一个大致合适的人,真正的“工作”才刚刚开始。这项工作是将陌生人转化为能够相互理解的伴侣,而不会在遇到冲突时轻易放弃。大多数人放弃得太早,他们会说“我们做不到”,然后回到约会应用上寻找下一个可能同样无法满足其情感需求的陌生人。

我们真正需要做的是创造“对的人”(Create Right People: 通过自我成长和努力,使自己和伴侣更适合彼此),而非仅仅寻找他们。这意味着在心理和治疗层面进行自我提升,理解童年时期形成的情感“脚本”,并为自己带入关系中的问题负责,而不是将其投射到无辜的伴侣身上。我创立的生命学院(The School of Life: 致力于情感成长和发展的机构)会建议人们在约会时,开玩笑地问对方:“你‘疯’在哪里?”(How are you crazy?)。这并非指每个人都真的“疯了”,而是指每个人都有需要掌控的内在问题。如果对方能坦诚地回答,并提及自己的家庭背景,那么这可能是一个值得信赖的人。相反,如果对方觉得这个问题无礼或拒绝回答,那么这个人可能不适合深交。

我们不需要或不可能拥有完美的伴侣,但我们必须努力成为并寻找那些足够了解自身模式,能够预警潜在伴侣并采取规避行动的人。治疗性关系的起点是认识到,两个人进入关系时,都带着各自的历史(History: 个人过往的经历和情感模式)。伴侣双方必须尽可能多地了解这些历史,为爱情中的挑战和困惑做好准备。治疗性关系要求伴侣双方都能掌控源自童年的动态模式(Dynamics: 关系中持续存在的互动模式和力量),并能以优雅、耐心和洞察力与对方讨论这些模式。当问题出现时,他们能够采用治疗性语言(Therapeutic Language: 旨在促进理解、共情和解决问题的沟通方式)。例如,在冲突中说“我理解你的观点,它可能与我的不同,但我知道那是你的观点”,这才是治疗性的。而说“你错了,你是个白痴,你就像你妈妈/爸爸一样”,则不是治疗性的。

我们常常在关系中大喊大叫、指责、推卸责任,做尽各种导致关系毁灭的事情,然后又感到惊讶。我们这个社会痴迷于寻找“对的人”,却很少停下来思考“我如何成为对的人?我如何进行自我提升?”讽刺的是,自我认知并非独处就能实现。我们需要他人,就像需要镜子才能看到自己的后脑勺一样。心理治疗提供了一个平台,让我们向治疗师倾诉生活中的困境,通过模式识别和洞察,将零散的经历拼凑起来,从而打破无意识的“脚本”,获得解放。

心理治疗还涉及防御机制(Defense Mechanisms: 心理用来应对焦虑、压力或不愉快情绪的无意识策略)的概念。这些是我们的心智用来保护自己,避免了解自身运作真相的工具。我们为何要逃避自我认知?因为了解自己是令人恐惧的。学习某些真相可能使我们焦虑、悲伤,甚至恐慌,因此我们会推开不受欢迎的信息。我们可能无法承受自己有多么复杂,我们是如此脆弱,不愿与自己的情绪共处。自我认知(Self-knowledge: 对自身思想、情感、行为和动机的深刻理解)仍然是一个极其难以实现的目标,但它却是生命中最重要的目标。古希腊人深知“认识你自己”是其文化和哲学中最重要的诫命。然而在现代社会,自我认知并未受到足够重视。我们知道赚钱、旅行、学习新技能很重要,但了解自己却不被推崇。这导致我们对自己如同陌生人,不仅困惑,甚至对他人构成危险。一个不了解自己的人,在面对自身行为时会推卸责任,不知道自己为何做某些事,例如在关系中因“感觉太强烈”而退出,却不明白自己行为背后的原因。

成为一个更好的伴侣,需要我们降低防御机制,并观察它们。典型的防御机制是将责任推给他人,例如当有人指出你的问题时,你不是说“谢谢,我会考虑”,而是反驳“你为什么这么粗鲁?”或“现在不是时候”。这实际上是在推开可能帮助你的信息,并非因为它不真实,而是因为它难以接受。我们所有人都有防御机制,都无法完全承受关于自己的真相。

Original English Source

Chapter 3 - The Playbook for a Successful Relationship First of all, the idea of a playbook sounds strange. The idea of a playbook that you need to create to get in a relationship sounds really odd. You think, I don't need a playbook. I just need to head on in there, get a dating app and off I go and a nice new pair of clothes. But isn't it interesting and wouldn't it be lovely to have a playbook that would be trying to guide you to acquire the knowledge that you need for love? So the idea that love is a skill rather than an emotion is a strange one, but I think an absolutely essential one in the world view that I'm positing. You know, if somebody said, I'm going to climb Mount Everest or K2, you would say, OK, how have you prepared for this? And you'd be expecting them to show up with ropes, with training programs, with oxygen, with specially prepared packs of food. You can get the metaphor. We walk into the mountain of love without sufficient preparation and equipment. And then we're surprised that we routinely tumble off the mountain and we blame the other person. We say we didn't match the right person. We haven't found our person. We go back on the dating app and we go ever further to try and find the right person. Don't get me wrong. Dating apps have their role. Sometimes we need to scan and see who's out there and find a person who halfway meets us where we want to be. But once you've found a more or less suitable person, that's when the work begins. And the work is to turn a stranger into somebody that you can understand and who can understand you without bottling it, without panicking, without throwing them in the bin, without saying we can't work this out if after five weeks in a pleasant mini break in Copenhagen we suddenly have a conflict. No, the point is you need to stay where you are and try and figure it out. But most people give up too soon. They say we can't possibly do this. And they run for the hills, go back on the dating app and find the next person with whom they will then try out an equally unfulfilling attempt to match their heart with strangers. What we need to do is to start to create right people rather than search for them. And what does that mean to create a right person? It means to work on yourself psychologically and therapeutically so that you understand your script from childhood and do not simply play it out onto innocent person after innocent person, that you take responsibility for the problems that you are bringing into a relationship. At the School of Life which I founded, an institution that is dedicated to emotional growth and development, we tell our people that when they honour date with somebody, among the first questions is to ask people playfully, "How are you crazy?" What does that mean? How are you crazy? Why is everybody crazy? They're not necessarily crazy. Well, all of us have stuff that we need to be on top of. And if your person at dinner says to you, "Yeah, I get the question. Yeah, I've got my crazy. And my crazy is this. My crazy is that. My father, my mother." This is turning out to be a safe person. If the person goes, "How do you mean I can't possibly answer that question? That's rude. You think I'm not right or imperfect. Run for the hills. Drop it right there and then." I'm exaggerating, but this is probably not a person you should be hanging out with because none of us need or can have perfect partners. But what we can have and must search for and must try to become is people who know enough about their patterns to be able to warn their prospective partners of what's going on and take averting action. The beginning of therapeutic relationships is to know that two people, when entering a couple, are not entering without a lot of history. It is essential that couples learn as much as possible about that history so that they are ready for the challenges and perplexities of love. A therapeutic relationship requires that each partner get on top of their dynamics, that date back to childhood, and are able to discuss them with relative grace, patience, and insight with their partner so that when problems arise and they will, they can adopt a therapeutic language. It is therapeutic to say, for example, when there is a conflict, "I hear your point of view. It may not be mine, but I hear that it's yours." It is not therapeutic to say, "You're wrong. You're an idiot, and you're just like your mother." Or, indeed, like your father. This is not therapeutic. I'm kidding, but I'm making a very serious point. Indeed, we do not tend to talk to each other in therapeutically informed language. We shout, we scream, we blame, we shape-shift, we don't take responsibility. We do all sorts of things that doom us in relationships. Then we stand back and we say, "We're surprised. We are a society that is obsessed with finding the right person without pausing to think, 'How do I become the right person? How do I work on myself?' Understanding that cannot be done simply, and this is paradoxical, by being on your own. This is another unbelievable mystery. You can't understand yourself just by being with yourself. You need other people. Why is that? It's like, why do you need a mirror to see the back of your head? Because we don't have eyes there. We need someone to help us to see the things that are really hard for us to see. And psychotherapy gives us a forum in which we can come, tell the therapist about what's going on in our lives, explain what happened last Monday, explain what happened when we took that trip to New York or Buffalo, wherever it is, what happened, and then slowly pattern recognition sets in. The therapist is able to go, "It's funny. In that last relationship you did this, this new relationship you're doing that, and you mentioned that your parent did something that sounds kind of similar." So I wonder what's going on, and then slowly insight comes. We start to put the pieces together. We think, "I'm up to something. I'm doing something." And that way is liberation. We can start to break the unconscious stories that we're living. Psychotherapy works with this concept known as "defences" or "defense mechanisms." In other words, these are tools that our minds adopt to try and shield themselves from accurate knowledge of their own workings. It's going to sound really odd, like, why don't we just embrace self-knowledge with open arms? Why do we need to run away from it? The answer is that knowledge of ourselves is frightening. It's really awful to have to learn certain things. It may make us very anxious. It may make us so sorrowful. It may panic us, and so we push away unwelcome information. I think that we still perhaps can't quite bear how complicated we are. You know, we're very squeamish creatures. We don't like to sit with ourselves. We don't like to sit with our emotions. Self-knowledge remains an enormously elusive goal. You know, I think it is the most important goal of life. To understand oneself is literally the meaning of life. The ancient Greeks knew this, "Know thyself" was the most important command in ancient Greek culture and philosophy. "Know thyself" - the most important thing you could do. If you said nowadays, you know, in a conversation with friends or colleagues, "What's your goal? Where are you trying to get to next year? What are you trying to do?" You know, say, "Know thyself." People would go, "That's a strange person there. We don't know about this person." It's not an acceptable goal. We know that it's good to make money. We know that it's good to travel to foreign countries, to learn how to fry garlic and to learn salsa. It's not particularly esteemed to know yourself. And that's why we wander around strangers to ourselves and therefore enormously confusing. And let's put it frankly, dangerous to other people. Because a person who doesn't understand themselves, you know, if confronted with their behavior will go, "It wasn't me. I didn't do it." Or, "I can't think." Or, you know, "Ask me tomorrow." They can't account for themselves. They don't know why they do the stuff they do. They will simply, in a relationship, for example, bail out of a relationship going, "You know, it's getting too intense." And why? They don't know. They don't understand what they themselves are doing. Even though, you know, they may have spent five years learning, you know, Spanish. They may have taken an advanced degree in Japanese. They may be, you know, very active in all sorts of ways. They may have learned pottery. They may be holding down a great job in marketing something. But the point is they will not have learned the really true constituents of emotional functioning because they've been able to get away with it. And part of the playbook of becoming a better lover is to dial down your defense mechanisms, to observe them. A typical defense mechanism is to push responsibility onto other people, to say it's your fault. For example, someone tries to tell you something about yourself. Someone says, "I think that you, you know, you're a little bit this when that happens." You know, and rather than going, "Thank you. Let me think about that." You go, "Why are you being rude?" Or, "This is not a good time for me." Or, "I can't absorb this now." In other words, you push away information that might have helped you. Not because it's false, but because it's difficult to absorb. And that's often what happens to us. All of us, all of us are involved in defense mechanisms. All of us can't quite bear the full truth about ourselves. It helps us to go to psychotherapy. I know that, you know, AIs, you know, deliver some aspects of therapy. It can be good at points. The good thing about a real human being is that they are not guided just by you. They've got their own independent judgment. And also, you're in a relationship with them. And that relationship is part of what heals you, because the relationship with the therapist is a harbinger of the relationship that you can then take out into the world, a relationship of trust and mutual understanding. This is something that AIs not going to be able to replace anytime soon. So we need to understand ourselves. We need to understand the past. And then we need a certain spirit.

培养关系韧性:幽默、悲观与持续学习的价值

除了自我认知和理解过去,我们还需要一种特定的精神。在爱的行动指南中,幽默感(Sense of Humor: 能够以轻松、自嘲的态度看待自身和生活的能力)是不可或缺的。幽默代表着对我们理解能力的一种谦逊,能够向伴侣传递“我们可能有些笨拙,并非无所不知”的信号,这是一种极佳的润滑剂,能降低关系的紧张度。如果伴侣能说“我可能没理解,可能没搞懂,这太棒了”,并且还能开个小玩笑,那将是爱中美好的时刻。将彼此视为“可爱的傻瓜”,这并非消极,而是一种慷慨,如同两个盲人互相扶持前行。这种慷慨和相互宽恕的精神,是进入爱的最佳方式。我们不应自视甚高,认为自己掌握了所有答案,因为这种态度是爱的敌人。我们需要一种幽默的谦逊。

此外,要让爱成功,我们还需要一定程度的悲观主义(Pessimism: 对未来或事态发展持负面或现实预期的态度)。乐观主义是爱的敌人。如果我们认为会有完美的爱情故事,没有丝毫波折,那是不可能的。我们需要接受,即使是很好的关系也会不断出现危机,而这并无大碍。问题不在于危机本身,而在于我们如何修复危机。我们能否以宽恕、理解,最重要的是以好奇心(Curiosity: 渴望了解和探索事物的心理倾向)来修复它们?我们能否好奇为何会爆发争吵,为何我们的依恋模式不兼容,为何我们难以被爱?通过这种方式,我们反而会变得更容易被爱。因此,悲观主义并非爱的敌人。认识到世上没有“对的人”,反而有助于我们找到一个足够好的人(Good Enough Person: 并非完美,但愿意共同努力解决问题并成长的伴侣)。

几年前,我为《纽约时报》写了一篇名为《你将嫁给一个错误的人》(Why You Will Marry The Wrong Person)的文章,引起了广泛关注。我认为它之所以走红,是因为许多人(并非所有人)都觉得自己嫁错了人,并为此感到恐慌和羞愧。这篇文章告诉大家:“是的,我们都会嫁给一个错误的人,但这没关系。你不需要嫁给‘对的人’,你需要嫁给一个‘足够好的人’。”兼容性(Compatibility: 两个人之间在性格、兴趣、价值观等方面相互协调的能力)并非爱的先决条件,而是爱的果实。当我们与某人在一起,发现彼此存在差异时(例如不同的依恋风格、爱好、甚至对窗帘颜色的偏好),现代浪漫约会文化往往会建议“离开,寻找更好的人”。这就是为什么所有技术工具都致力于不断为你呈现新的人选。当然,有时我们需要寻找新的人,但更重要的是学会与眼前的人相处。许多人已经找到了一个足够好的伴侣,却因为浪漫文化教导我们总能找到一个“完美契合”的人而放弃他们。这是一个极具破坏性的观念。

真正的“工作”始于问题出现之时。当你遇到问题时,你需要卷起袖子,思考如何让这段关系奏效。我们需要像修理故障机器的工程师一样,拆解问题,耐心沟通。这听起来可能不浪漫,但一个“足够好的人”是愿意致力于共同创造兼容性(Working Towards Compatibility: 双方通过努力和沟通来适应彼此并建立和谐关系的过程)的伴侣。他们不会因为问题而认为你错了,而是懂得如何修复危机,保持好奇心,倾听,并保持耐心。这种态度能够应对各种问题,无论是性问题、关系问题还是行政问题。

相反,“错误的人”是那些冷处理(Stonewalls: 在沟通中拒绝回应或退缩,导致对话中断的行为)、总是指责你、逃避责任、或抱怨“和前任在一起更容易”的人。这些人之所以麻烦,是因为他们拒绝承担爱的“工作”。所以,拥有许多困难并不可怕,关键在于你对待困难的态度。解决方案是抱持一种宽容、好奇和冷静审视我们共同缺陷的态度。我们都是“疯狂的猴子”,只要我们对彼此的“疯狂”保持善意,就能安然无恙。

一个真正的问题是,我们需要很长时间才能弄清楚作为爱人或关系中的人,我们究竟是谁。改变我们的模式尤其漫长。如果一个人每次遇到爱都会破坏关系,要解开这个结需要多长时间?这需要洞察力,更需要真正的“工作”。有时人们进行六到十二次心理治疗后,会抱怨“我没有改变,治疗没用”。这就像一个中年英语使用者决定学习韩语或芬兰语,上了六节课后却连自己的名字都说不出来,然后就抱怨整个过程“一无是处”。人们会说你太没耐心了。同样,重塑我们的情感语言也需要漫长的时间。几十年来形成的模式,需要许多年才能理清。

在此期间,我们并非无所作为。我们可以边学习边前行,从年轻时就开始探索关系之路,但同时也要进行自我提升。最重要的是,要承认自己是“学习者”。苏格拉底曾说,他之所以是古代最智慧的人,是因为他知道自己无知。真正的智慧诞生于对自身无知的认知。我认为这也是我们在爱情生活中应遵循的最佳途径。

我们可以学习向自己和伴侣提出一些问题,以建立更好的关系。例如:“当我靠近你时,你感觉如何?”这能揭示亲密关系中可能出现的复杂性。“如果我爱你,你哪一部分可能会感到担忧?”这是一个很好的问题。“当有人试图与我沟通时,我如何回应?是冷处理还是接受?我能否停下来思考问题可能出在我身上?还是总会说‘我无法回答,那是对方的问题,你不公平,你在给我施压’?”你的情感灵活度(Emotional Dexterity: 一个人在处理和表达情感方面的熟练程度和适应能力)如何?另一个有用的问题是:“我如何惹恼了你?我如何让你感到沮丧?”许多伴侣之间的问题都潜藏在表面之下,人们缺乏勇气去表达,导致问题恶化,甚至影响亲密关系。性欲的根源在于信任,而建立信任的方式是沟通,尤其是沟通信任的破裂。与其点蜡烛、去酒店,不如在平静、轻松、宽恕的时刻,耐心询问对方:“我是否惹恼了你?有什么事情你想告诉我吗?”

Original English Source

Chapter 3 - The Playbook for a Successful Relationship First of all, the idea of a playbook sounds strange. The idea of a playbook that you need to create to get in a relationship sounds really odd. You think, I don't need a playbook. I just need to head on in there, get a dating app and off I go and a nice new pair of clothes. But isn't it interesting and wouldn't it be lovely to have a playbook that would be trying to guide you to acquire the knowledge that you need for love? So the idea that love is a skill rather than an emotion is a strange one, but I think an absolutely essential one in the world view that I'm positing. You know, if somebody said, I'm going to climb Mount Everest or K2, you would say, OK, how have you prepared for this? And you'd be expecting them to show up with ropes, with training programs, with oxygen, with specially prepared packs of food. You can get the metaphor. We walk into the mountain of love without sufficient preparation and equipment. And then we're surprised that we routinely tumble off the mountain and we blame the other person. We say we didn't match the right person. We haven't found our person. We go back on the dating app and we go ever further to try and find the right person. Don't get me wrong. Dating apps have their role. Sometimes we need to scan and see who's out there and find a person who halfway meets us where we want to be. But once you've found a more or less suitable person, that's when the work begins. And the work is to turn a stranger into somebody that you can understand and who can understand you without bottling it, without panicking, without throwing them in the bin, without saying we can't work this out if after five weeks in a pleasant mini break in Copenhagen we suddenly have a conflict. No, the point is you need to stay where you are and try and figure it out. But most people give up too soon. They say we can't possibly do this. And they run for the hills, go back on the dating app and find the next person with whom they will then try out an equally unfulfilling attempt to match their heart with strangers. What we need to do is to start to create right people rather than search for them. And what does that mean to create a right person? It means to work on yourself psychologically and therapeutically so that you understand your script from childhood and do not simply play it out onto innocent person after innocent person, that you take responsibility for the problems that you are bringing into a relationship. At the School of Life which I founded, an institution that is dedicated to emotional growth and development, we tell our people that when they honour date with somebody, among the first questions is to ask people playfully, "How are you crazy?" What does that mean? How are you crazy? Why is everybody crazy? They're not necessarily crazy. Well, all of us have stuff that we need to be on top of. And if your person at dinner says to you, "Yeah, I get the question. Yeah, I've got my crazy. And my crazy is this. My crazy is that. My father, my mother." This is turning out to be a safe person. If the person goes, "How do you mean I can't possibly answer that question? That's rude. You think I'm not right or imperfect. Run for the hills. Drop it right there and then." I'm exaggerating, but this is probably not a person you should be hanging out with because none of us need or can have perfect partners. But what we can have and must search for and must try to become is people who know enough about their patterns to be able to warn their prospective partners of what's going on and take averting action. The beginning of therapeutic relationships is to know that two people, when entering a couple, are not entering without a lot of history. It is essential that couples learn as much as possible about that history so that they are ready for the challenges and perplexities of love. A therapeutic relationship requires that each partner get on top of their dynamics, that date back to childhood, and are able to discuss them with relative grace, patience, and insight with their partner so that when problems arise and they will, they can adopt a therapeutic language. It is therapeutic to say, for example, when there is a conflict, "I hear your point of view. It may not be mine, but I hear that it's yours." It is not therapeutic to say, "You're wrong. You're an idiot, and you're just like your mother." Or, indeed, like your father. This is not therapeutic. I'm kidding, but I'm making a very serious point. Indeed, we do not tend to talk to each other in therapeutically informed language. We shout, we scream, we blame, we shape-shift, we don't take responsibility. We do all sorts of things that doom us in relationships. Then we stand back and we say, "We're surprised. We are a society that is obsessed with finding the right person without pausing to think, 'How do I become the right person? How do I work on myself?' Understanding that cannot be done simply, and this is paradoxical, by being on your own. This is another unbelievable mystery. You can't understand yourself just by being with yourself. You need other people. Why is that? It's like, why do you need a mirror to see the back of your head? Because we don't have eyes there. We need someone to help us to see the things that are really hard for us to see. And psychotherapy gives us a forum in which we can come, tell the therapist about what's going on in our lives, explain what happened last Monday, explain what happened when we took that trip to New York or Buffalo, wherever it is, what happened, and then slowly pattern recognition sets in. The therapist is able to go, "It's funny. In that last relationship you did this, this new relationship you're doing that, and you mentioned that your parent did something that sounds kind of similar." So I wonder what's going on, and then slowly insight comes. We start to put the pieces together. We think, "I'm up to something. I'm doing something." And that way is liberation. We can start to break the unconscious stories that we're living. Psychotherapy works with this concept known as "defences" or "defense mechanisms." In other words, these are tools that our minds adopt to try and shield themselves from accurate knowledge of their own workings. It's going to sound really odd, like, why don't we just embrace self-knowledge with open arms? Why do we need to run away from it? The answer is that knowledge of ourselves is frightening. It's really awful to have to learn certain things. It may make us very anxious. It may make us so sorrowful. It may panic us, and so we push away unwelcome information. I think that we still perhaps can't quite bear how complicated we are. You know, we're very squeamish creatures. We don't like to sit with ourselves. We don't like to sit with our emotions. Self-knowledge remains an enormously elusive goal. You know, I think it is the most important goal of life. To understand oneself is literally the meaning of life. The ancient Greeks knew this, "Know thyself" was the most important command in ancient Greek culture and philosophy. "Know thyself" - the most important thing you could do. If you said nowadays, you know, in a conversation with friends or colleagues, "What's your goal? Where are you trying to get to next year? What are you trying to do?" You know, say, "Know thyself." People would go, "That's a strange person there. We don't know about this person." It's not an acceptable goal. We know that it's good to make money. We know that it's good to travel to foreign countries, to learn how to fry garlic and to learn salsa. It's not particularly esteemed to know yourself. And that's why we wander around strangers to ourselves and therefore enormously confusing. And let's put it frankly, dangerous to other people. Because a person who doesn't understand themselves, you know, if confronted with their behavior will go, "It wasn't me. I didn't do it." Or, "I can't think." Or, you know, "Ask me tomorrow." They can't account for themselves. They don't know why they do the stuff they do. They will simply, in a relationship, for example, bail out of a relationship going, "You know, it's getting too intense." And why? They don't know. They don't understand what they themselves are doing. Even though, you know, they may have spent five years learning, you know, Spanish. They may have taken an advanced degree in Japanese. They may be, you know, very active in all sorts of ways. They may have learned pottery. They may be holding down a great job in marketing something. But the point is they will not have learned the really true constituents of emotional functioning because they've been able to get away with it. And part of the playbook of becoming a better lover is to dial down your defense mechanisms, to observe them. A typical defense mechanism is to push responsibility onto other people, to say it's your fault. For example, someone tries to tell you something about yourself. Someone says, "I think that you, you know, you're a little bit this when that happens." You know, and rather than going, "Thank you. Let me think about that." You go, "Why are you being rude?" Or, "This is not a good time for me." Or, "I can't absorb this now." In other words, you push away information that might have helped you. Not because it's false, but because it's difficult to absorb. And that's often what happens to us. All of us, all of us are involved in defense mechanisms. All of us can't quite bear the full truth about ourselves. It helps us to go to psychotherapy. I know that, you know, AIs, you know, deliver some aspects of therapy. It can be good at points. The good thing about a real human being is that they are not guided just by you. They've got their own independent judgment. And also, you're in a relationship with them. And that relationship is part of what heals you, because the relationship with the therapist is a harbinger of the relationship that you can then take out into the world, a relationship of trust and mutual understanding. This is something that AIs not going to be able to replace anytime soon. So we need to understand ourselves. We need to understand the past. And then we need a certain spirit. One of the things that we need in that playbook of love is a good sense of humor. That could sound superfluous, like what on earth, you know, why do we need a sense of humor? Well, a sense of humor is a modesty about our capacity to understand anything. And if we can signal to our partners that, you know, we're a little stupid. We don't get it. We don't have all the answers. That is a wonderful emollient. It's a wonderful lubricant to love, because it just dials down the temperature. If your partner is able to say, "Ah, I may not have understood this. I may not be getting it. That's brilliant." And if they can make a little joke too, that's great. You know, if two people can learn to see each other as idiots, but lovable idiots, that's a beautiful moment in love. It could sound negative. It's not. It's not. It's the most generous thing you can do. We are two blind people helping each other to find a way forward. If that's the spirit in which we can enter love, that is a spirit of generosity, a spirit of mutual forgiveness. Too often we get on our high horses. This is the way it is. I know the answer. This is what I think. That is not a friend of love. So we need, if you like, a modesty, a humorous modesty. Let me give you another idea. Another thing that we need in order to make love work is a certain degree of pessimism. You know, optimism is the enemy of love. If we think that we will have a perfect love story, a love story with no ruffles in it, with no kinks in it, no, it's not going to happen. We need to accept that even a really good relationship has constant moments of crisis. And that's okay. The problem is not crisis. The problem is how do we repair crises? Can we repair them with forgiveness, with understanding, and most of all with curiosity? Can we get curious about why we had a bust up? Can we be searching for why our attachment patterns are not compatible? Can we get interested in why we're difficult to love, and that way will become easier to love? So pessimism is not an enemy of love. Knowing that there is no such thing as the right person actually helps you to find a good enough person. You know, a few years ago I wrote an essay that went viral. I wrote it for the New York Times. It was called "Why You Will Marry The Wrong Person". Why did that essay go viral? I think it went viral because people all feel... Sorry, let me correct that. Not all people, but many, many people feel that they have married the wrong person. And they panic about this and they feel so ashamed. So here's an essay in the New York Times that says, "Yeah, we're all going to marry the wrong person." And you know what? It's okay. You don't need to marry the right person. You need to marry a good enough person. You know, compatibility is not a precondition of love. Compatibility is the fruit of love. If we get together with someone and we find that there are differences, right? They have one kind of attachment style. We have another. They like golf. We like tennis. They like the curtains to be green. We like the curtains to be yellow. Whatever it is. Too often in modern romantic dating culture, the answer is get out. Just get out. Find someone else. Find someone better. And that's why all the technological tools are all about putting new people in front of you. Of course, sometimes you need to find new people. But as much as finding new people, what you need to do is to learn to live with the people who are in front of you. With the people that you've found. Many of us have already found a good enough partner. And yet we throw them in the bin because we are taught by romantic culture that we can always find a perfect person with whom it will click immediately. And this is such a destructive idea. If you think, you know what? The work starts here. The work starts when you have a problem. Then you roll up your sleeves and you think, OK, well, I know that I, you know, broadly think this person is a nice person. Now we're going to work at making sure that it can work. And so we're going to talk and we're going to take this problem apart. We're going to become like engineers who've got a malfunctioning machine. We're going to sort it out. This sounds unromantic, doesn't it? Imagine saying, in order to make my relationship work every evening, I've talked for an hour in really patient ways. You think, oh my God, go to Vegas, find someone easier. Well, good luck to you. Maybe you'll find that person. But for some of us, especially some of us who've come through difficult relationships, difficult relationships in our past, we may need to go and do that kind of excavation. Maybe that's fine. I think that a good enough person is someone who will engage with the business of working towards compatibility. That they won't assume that you are wrong just because there are problems. They will know how to repair crises. They will know how to be curious. They will know how to listen. They will know how to be patient. That is compatible with all sorts of problems. Sexual problems, relational problems, administrative problems. Doesn't matter. You can work through them. So the wrong person is someone who stonewalls, who always blames you, who blanks out, who says, it's not my responsibility, or, you know, it was easier with my ex and, you know, why are you so difficult, etc. These people are trouble because they are refusing the work of love. So it doesn't matter if you have many, many difficulties. That's okay. The problem is your attitude to the difficulties. And the solution is an attitude of indulgence, of curiosity, and of calm consideration of the flaws that unite us all. We are all mad monkeys. And so long as we've been kind towards the mad monkey and all of us, we'll be okay. One of the real problems, and, you know, there's simply no solution, but we need to accept that there's a real problem, is how long it takes to work out who we are as lovers, as people interested in relationships, who we are. It takes so long, and it takes especially long to try and change our patterns. You know, if we are somebody who sabotages relationships every time that love comes along, how long is that going to take to unwind this? Well, it takes insight, but then it takes, as it were, work, true work. And sometimes people go to therapy for six sessions or 12 sessions, and they go, "I haven't changed. Therapy doesn't work." And let's come back to my earlier example about language. Imagine that you decided middle age as an English speaker to pick up Korean or Finnish, and you went to six lessons, and you tried to learn Finnish and Korean. And by the end of six lessons, you could barely ask for, you know, barely say your own name or say hello. And then you blamed it on the whole process, and you said, "I'm not learning this language. It's rubbish." People would say, "You're being too impatient." And I think that some of the same holds true for rewiring our emotional language. We can't pick this up in six sessions of 50 minutes. It takes a long time. A pattern that was laid down over decades is going to take many, many years to figure it out. It's, I mean, believe me, it's bad news. I wish it weren't so. Can we do anything in the meantime? Yes, of course we can. We can be learning and walking. We don't have to pause and just sit by the roadside. We can be starting on the path of relationships. We can start from a relatively young age, but we need to be doing the work alongside, and we need to be able to at least do the first thing, which is to say, "I'm learning. I'm a learner." There's a real difference between someone who goes, "I know it all," and someone who knows that they are still learning. When Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, was asked why he was the wisest person in antiquity, he said, "Because I know what I don't know." In other words, that the birth of true wisdom is associated with the knowledge of your ignorance. I think that's the best way we can proceed also in relation to our love lives. There are lots of questions that we could learn to ask ourselves and our partners in order to try and find a better relationship. One of them is this. When I get close to you, how does that feel? To open up a window onto some of the complexities that occur when somebody gets close. If I love you, what part of you might worry? That's a good question. Does any part of you worry? Another really useful question is how do I respond when someone is trying to communicate something to me? Do I stonewall or do I accept? Am I able to pause and think the issue might be with me? Or do I always have to go, "I can't answer that. It's the other person. You're being unfair. You're putting me under pressure." What is your level of emotional dexterity? So that's a good question to be asking yourself as well. Also, one of the really good questions in any relationship is to say, "How have I annoyed you?" How have I frustrated you? You know, a lot of what happens between couples is there are things that are bubbling away beneath the surface that people can't find the courage to say. And because they can't say them, the problem doesn't improve. The problem gets worse. People can't have sex anymore. A lot of the reason why people can't have sex has got nothing to do with sex. It's to do with the fact they feel disconnected and angry and misunderstood. You can't have sex with someone who you feel misunderstood by or you feel furious with. What helps desire is trust. And the way to build up trust is to communicate, and particularly communicate, ruptures of trust. If you want to have good sex, don't get a candle, don't go to a hotel. Start to ask each other, "Have I annoyed you? Is there something I've done that you'd like to tell me?" And you say this patiently, not in the middle of the night when you're stressed or maybe you've drunk too much, but when you're calm, when there's a sense of lightness and forgiveness, use the right moment to ask the right question.

社会地位焦虑与孤独:重构联结的路径

我们不能忘记,爱不仅是人际间的浪漫之爱,也包括我们从他人那里获得的爱,这取决于我们在社会中的地位。社会地位(Status: 一个人在社会中的相对位置和受尊重程度)是我们抱负中一个非常有趣的特征。我们努力工作,不仅为了物质回报,更是为了获得那些我们依赖其好感来感觉良好的人的尊重和认可。如果我们选择每年赚取高薪但被所有人厌恶,与选择最低工资但受人尊敬之间,我们无疑会选择后者。在我们的文化中,大多数人努力工作和追求金钱,并非为了金钱本身,而是因为金钱是获得社区爱与尊重(Love and Respect: 来自社会群体的认可、重视和喜爱)的主要途径。改变地位系统,就能改变激励结构。历史上,高地位曾与虔诚的宗教信仰或高超的狩猎技能挂钩。而如今,我们地位的衡量标准,往往是陌生人在初次见面30秒内会问的问题:“你是做什么的?”根据你的回答,人们要么热情相待,要么将你冷落。

我们生活在一个势利的世界(World of Snobs: 人们根据他人的社会地位、财富或职业来评判其价值和尊重的社会环境)。势利小人会根据你的一小部分信息,对你的价值和应得的爱做出全面判断。社会残酷地以我们的职业和名片来评判我们,并给予我们地位之爱(Status Love: 基于个人成就、财富或社会地位而获得的尊重和认可),甚至可能影响浪漫之爱。这就是我们拼命工作、对职业感到恐慌,以及职业不顺时会感到绝望的原因。我们失去的不仅是物质,更是社会眼中我们的好名声(Good Name: 在社会中获得的良好声誉和尊重)。

前现代社会有一些内置的安全阀(Safety Valves: 旨在缓解社会压力或提供替代价值来源的机制),以保护人们免受“你的价值就是你所做之事”这种单一观念的束缚。这些安全阀通过多种方式软化了这种观念:

  1. 宗教(Religion: 一种信仰体系,通常涉及对神灵的崇拜和一套道德准则)。宗教的有趣之处在于,人们所崇拜的神灵通常爱人并非因为他们做了什么,而是因为他们是谁,神灵关注的是灵魂。这是一种重要的防御机制:将属于凯撒的归于凯撒,其余的归于上帝。这赋予了人们一种自由感,即使事业不顺,也有另一条获得爱和情感的途径。
  2. 隔离(Isolation: 与他人或社会保持距离的状态)。我们是第一批24/7被他人包围的社会之一,大多数人生活在城市中。而当人们不生活在城市时,他们被自然(Nature: 构成地球环境的物理世界,包括植物、动物、景观等)包围。自然打破了那种单一的价值体系,即你的价值由他人定义。当被自然环绕时,你的价值不再仅仅由人类定义,你生活在一个更广阔、更自由的世界中,你的价值由更广泛的力量决定。这带来了我们转向城市社会和网络世界后所失去的氧气和自由。

大约一百年前,尼采(Nietzsche: 德国哲学家,提出“上帝已死”概念)宣告“上帝已死”,宗教作为人们生活的指导力量逐渐消失。尽管仍有许多信徒,但我们已不再主要生活在宗教社会中。我们生活在现代世俗社会,其核心是浪漫之爱、地位表现、物质财富、对自然的否定,以及对人类能动性无限的信仰。伴随这种信仰而来的是对自身死亡率(Mortality: 最终会死亡的本质)的否定。

我们该如何应对?我认为我们需要向宗教寻求答案,并将其中的许多“安全阀”和真知灼见引入世俗文化。例如:

  • 共同用餐(Communal Dining: 人们聚在一起分享食物的传统)。所有宗教都将来自不同社区的陌生人聚集在一起共同用餐,以减少猜疑。我们需要回归这种共同用餐的传统,打破陌生人之间的隔阂。
  • 有意识地谈论爱。我们需要智慧而有目的地谈论爱,以及我们更好地去爱的能力和可能性,提醒自己需要在爱上付出努力。佛教和基督教等主要宗教都强调爱的重要性,但也强调爱是艰难的,我们需要认识到这一点。
  • 创造非商业空间。几乎所有宗教都创造了与商业空间分离的美丽、宁静的场所,将人们聚集在一起,建立一种不同的友谊,一种更受友善、善良和脆弱精神引导的联结。我们需要用世俗建筑取代寺庙和教堂,这些建筑不应仅仅是购物中心或汽车展厅,而应是能够将人们聚集在一起的最美丽的社区中心。

我们常常认为自己是孤独的,并为承认自己的孤独感到羞耻。摆脱孤独的根源在于分享你的孤独(Share Your Loneliness: 勇敢地向他人表达自己的孤独感和脆弱性),敢于相信你最羞耻的事情并非只存在于你心中,它们很可能也存在于他人心中,尽管表面上他人看起来很快乐。其他人也感到孤独、悲伤、迷失,也觉得自己搞砸了,在关系中也面临困难。友谊的开始在于能够脆弱,并承认失落和悲伤。我们认为友谊是快乐的俱乐部,但事实并非如此。真正的友谊始于泪水,始于承认悲伤的能力。这就是为什么男性在建立深厚友谊方面往往比女性更困难,因为在许多社会中,男性流泪仍然是一种禁忌。男性不敢承认悲伤和软弱,因为这会让他们觉得失去了男子气概。这对友谊来说是极其不幸的,因为它意味着友谊将建立在姿态和成功故事之上,而真正的友谊始于脆弱和脆弱性的展现。

一如既往,解决问题的方法在于自我意识(Self-awareness: 对自身思想、情感、行为的清晰理解)和相互意识(Mutual Awareness: 伴侣双方对彼此内在状态和模式的理解)。一旦我们看清模式,就能打破模式。一旦我们认识到自己生活在一个由物质地位系统定义的“监狱”中,而我们许多人并不真正看重这个系统,我们这样做并非出于本愿,而是因为它的存在,我们就能开始寻找替代方案。我并非建议你辞职,而是建议你超越工作来评估自己和他人。我指的是重新与自然建立联系,与脆弱性建立联系并分享这种脆弱性。这些都是我们可以启动的工具和机制,以摆脱一个压抑且缺乏爱的环境,一个让我们难以呼吸的环境。

你可以将爱定义为克服孤立、理解他人并被他人理解的追求。它是最高尚、最复杂的目标。如果一个人在生命尽头能说:“我爱过,我真挚地爱过。我理解并被理解。我帮助过并被帮助过。”那么,这就是一个活得精彩的人生(A Life Well-Lived: 充满意义、成就和满足感的人生)。我们不需要在物质世界或人文科学、自然科学领域取得多么辉煌的成就。最终,为了让我们的时间有价值,我们真正需要做的是与另一个人建立桥梁,敞开心扉,以尊重、谦逊和慷慨之心看待彼此。这才是美好人生的最终定义。

Original English Source

We're living in a world where therapeutic language and insights have spread for the first time far outside the consulting room. There is mass adoption at a superficial level of therapeutic language. And the area where we find this most obviously is social media and in particular Instagram, which is enormous, it's an enormous force in the world, and it has brought up a generation, I'd say, to speak in pseudo or vaguely therapeutic terms. I don't mean that as an insult. Some of these insights have been fantastic. People are now able to talk about, let's say, attachment theory, the mention of an avoidant attachment theory or an anxious attachment theory in many circles now doesn't create the puzzlement that it was generating 15 years ago. 15 years ago, this was not common knowledge. That was still in the university, in textbooks and in the consulting room. Now it's out in the world. And the medium that has changed this, as I say, is social media. What's the problem? I'll tell you one of the problems. One of the problems is whose fault it is. The tone of a lot of social media posting blames the problem for the struggles in relationships, fairly and squarely on the partner, not on yourself. There is an obsession with finding borderline people, narcissistic people, avoidance, anxious people, out in the world. And of course they exist, but the tone is the problem. The tone says, get out. These are red flags and everybody that you're meeting, the reason why you haven't made a relationship work, is because these people are unbalanced psychologically. My answer is this. If you are looking to find a person with no problems at all, with no psychological disturbances, good luck to you. If you're looking to find somebody with no red flags, good luck to you. Everybody has red flags. That's part of what it means to be human. That's the story of Genesis. The story of Genesis is Adam and Eve had some red flags. That's what it is to be human being, is somebody with a red flag. So the problem is not the red flag, it's how you deal with it. And this is what I worry that therapeutic culture on social media doesn't train us to do. It doesn't train us for patience. It doesn't train us to think we might be the problem. It doesn't ask us to think what we've brought to the situation. It doesn't create an atmosphere of forgiveness. The reason is very simple, outrage sells. It's more fun, it feels more spirited. It's punchier to say that ex of yours, they're the avoidant, they're crazy, they're narcissistic. It sounds better and it leaves everybody happier. But long term, it's not the solution. Chapter 4. Overcoming status anxiety and loneliness. You know, we mustn't forget that one of the sources of love that is most important to us is not just interpersonal romantic love, but the love that you get from other people. Strangers dependent on your standing in the community, your status. You know, status is a really interesting feature of everybody's ambitions. You know, why do we work so hard? We work so hard, not just for material rewards. We work hard in order to gain the esteem, the respect, the regard of people whose good affections we rely on to feel good about ourselves. If you said to somebody, you've got a choice, either we'll give you $10 million a year, but every time anyone sees your face, they'll go, oh my God, I hate that person, they're awful. I despise that person. You could have that option, or we'll give you a minimum wage, absolute minimum, bare minimum to survive. But every time anyone sees you, they'll go, oh my God, that person is amazing, it's just great, etc. We know which one we'd pick. We know that we would pick the love and affection of the stranger and the respect and esteem of our community, way over simple material rewards. Now, in our culture, the reason why most of us work so hard and the reason why most of us are so interested in money has nothing to do with the money. It's just that money is the chief conduit towards the love and respect that we stand to gain from our communities. If you change the status system and what you get status for, you will change the incentive structure. There have been periods in history where the number one thing you needed to do in order to have a high status was to worship God really intently. And then if you're good at worshiping God, you'd be considered amazing. And then people did that in droves, and that was considered very, very serious. In other cultures, it was considered very serious to be a good hunter. So people became more and more good at hunting, and that was what you did. And that was the root to getting status. Nowadays, how do we know what the status system is based on? We know it because of a very simple question that any stranger will ask us within normally 30 seconds of meeting us. What do you do? And according to how you answer that question, people are either going to be really pleased to see you. "Oh, great! We must hang out." Or they'll leave you alone by the peanuts and they don't want to know you. We're living in a world of snobs. A snob is really anyone who takes a small part of you and comes to a global decision of what you're worth and how much love you're worth. And that is the reality, the brute reality of the way in which we live in society. We will be judged ruthlessly by our careers, by what is on our business card. And we will be given love, status love, not romantic love, but status love. Maybe romantic love too, that's another consideration. But generally status love according to how impressive we are in the field of careers. It's why we work so hard, it's why we're so panicked about careers, and it's why there's such despair when careers don't work out. We're losing not just materially, we're losing our sense of our good name in the eyes of society. It's very brutal. I think older societies, pre-modern societies, had some built-in safety valves to try and protect people from that unitary sense that what you are worth is what you do, that you are what you do. It's always been somewhere there in the system because we are material creatures, we do depend on material goods, so it's always been there as part of the mix. But other cultures have softened this in a way that ours no longer does. They've softened it in a number of ways. Firstly through religion, through the mass adoption of religion. And the interesting thing about religion is generally the gods that people have worshiped love people, not for what they do but for who they are. They look inside your soul. And that's a vital defence mechanism. You're giving unto Caesar what Caesar wants and the rest is up to God. And that gives you a sense of freedom. It's like, well, I may not be performing so well in my career, but I've got an alternative route to love and affection. That's a huge defence. The other thing that really protected people was isolation. You know, we are one of the first societies to be constantly surrounded. 24/7 by other people, we live in vast cities. Most of the world's population now lives in a city. That wasn't the case until, you know, a minute ago. This is very new. When you don't live in a city, what do you live surrounded by? A very important psychological tool called nature. Trees, rivers, forests, grasses, insects, animals. What on earth has these things got to do with love? Well, what they do is they break that unitary system where you are worth what another human being defines you as being worth. When you're surrounded by nature, you're no longer just defined by other humans. You get to live in a more expansive, a more liberated world where your value is, you know, up to wider forces and that lends a lot of oxygen and a lot of freedom that we've lost as we've moved towards urban societies and of course, as we've gone online. Okay, here's another pet idea of mine. You know, religion disappeared as the guiding force in people's lives around 100 years ago when Nietzsche famously said, "God is dead." He announced the death of God. Now, you might say, "Hang on a minute, there are lots and lots of believers." There are. Of course there are. Many societies are still defined by religion. However, one can propose that in key ways we are no longer living in religious societies. We are living in modern, secular societies that are based around romantic love, status performance, material goods, a denial of nature, a cutting off from the natural world, and a cutting off from any sense of human agency being limited. We believe in human agency being able to determine everything. Along with that comes a denial, of course, of our own mortality. How would we start to do something about that? Well, I think we need to look to religions for answers. Religions have worked it out. I think that we need to steal from religions and to institute in secular culture many of the maneuvers of the safety valves and genuine insights that religions were brilliant at delivering. For example, we need to break bread together. All religions bring people, strangers together to break bread from different communities in order to lessen suspicion. We need to get back to a tradition of communal dining and of breaking the barriers that separates strangers from one another. We need also to talk with intelligence and intent about love and about our capacity and possibility of loving better than we do, of reminding ourselves that we need to make an effort around love. Buddhism does this, Christianity does this. All the main religions emphasize not just that love is important, but that love is hard, and we need a little bit of that. Religions also, almost all of them, have created spaces that are separate from the spaces of commerce, spaces that are beautiful, spaces that are peaceful, spaces that bring people together to create a different kind of fellowship, one more guided by a spirit of friendship and kindness and vulnerability. We need to replace our temples and churches with secular buildings that aren't just going to be shopping malls and that aren't just going to be car showrooms, but the places that will bring people together, the most beautiful community centers imaginable still need to be built, and I'd love to see them built. We think we're alone in being alone, and we think there is shame that attends to admitting how alone we are. The root out of loneliness is to share your loneliness, is to dare to believe that the things you are most ashamed of cannot be, structurally they cannot be, things that exist in your heart alone, that they have to be things that despite the evidence, the surface evidence of other people's cheerfulness, probably exist in other people. Other people are also lonely, are also sad, also feel lost, also feel that they've messed up, also have a hard time in their relationships. The beginning of friendship begins with the capacity to be vulnerable and to admit to loss and sadness. We think that friendship is a mutual club for cheerfulness, it's not. True friendship begins with tears, with the ability to admit to sadness. This is why men in many ways have a harder time than women, forming deep friendships because men, there's still in many societies a real taboo around male tears. Men cannot admit to being sad and weak without feeling that they have lost their masculinity. Extremely unfortunate as a root to friendship because it means that your friendship will need to be based on posturing and on the recounting of triumph and success. Whereas in fact, of course, true friendship begins with the revelation of vulnerability and fragility. As ever with a problem, self-awareness and mutual awareness is the way through. Once we can see the pattern, we can break the pattern. Once we can see that we're living in a prison defined by a material, a material status system that many of us don't value, that we are doing this not because we want to, but because it exists, we can start to find alternatives. I'm not talking about throwing in your job. I'm talking about evaluating yourself and other people beyond your job. I'm talking about getting back in touch with nature. I'm talking about getting in touch with vulnerability and sharing that vulnerability. These are all tools and mechanisms that we can put in motion to escape an otherwise really oppressive and genuinely loveless environment in which we're forced to live and can't breathe very easily in. You could define love as the quest to overcome isolation and understand someone else and find understanding by someone else. It is the most noble and the most complicated of goals. If anyone can reach the end of their life and say, "I have loved. I've loved properly. I've understood and been understood. I've helped and been helped." This is a life well-lived. We don't need to achieve that much that is splendid in the material world or in the world of insight in the humanities, insight in the sciences. What we really ultimately need to do to make our time worthwhile is to have built a bridge to another human and to have opened our heart and have seen theirs with respect and humility and generosity. That truly ultimately is the definition of a good life.

📌 文中提及的人物和组织

关键字: romantic-love attachment-theory self-knowledge relationship-dynamics emotional-intelligence