Ending
The Truman Show Towards the end of summer, I have decided to conclude this theme. Once I finish writing this article,🚪 I will temporarily go and work on my research paper!
As the final chapter on the topic of time value, this is neither a theoretical endorsement (a medium-length article) nor a motivational speech (the previous section). I have simply compiled quotes from various urban dwellers throughout different times and places since the first Industrial Revolution, along with simple illustrations. By borrowing these voices from across time, I hope to discuss how to spend our time and explore those significant or mundane moments in history. Most of the quotes (in English, German, and French) have been compiled through the research of others. I have used translation tools for a basic understanding and selected a portion to compile into this "overview," which may be longer than the previous piece (my apologies). We will start with a family in central England during the 18th century, as the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were just beginning. What relevance does the English Industrial Revolution from over a hundred years ago have to our future? I hope you can read it slowly and leisurely, in a relaxed state of mind.
在夏天的尾巴上，我决定完结这个主题，写完这篇就要暂时去🚪 写我的课题论文儿啦！ 作为时间价值的终章，这不是一篇理论背书（中篇）也不是心灵鸡汤（前篇），我简单摘录了自第一次工业革命以来不同时间不同地点，几位大都会小市民的工作生活焦虑语录，并配上了简单的插图。希望借用这些穿越时光的声音，来跟大家聊聊如何度过时间，以及，历史中那些或宏大或微小的情境瞬间。大部分（英文/德文/法文）语录都是经由前人的研究整理的，我借用翻译工具进行了粗浅的学习，然后挑选出其中一部分汇总为一篇夹杂了许多个人解读的“综述”，这一篇可能会比上一篇还长（对不起）。我们就从18世纪，刚刚开始资本主义工业化革命的英格兰中部地区的一家人说起，100多年前的英格兰工业革命跟你我的未来有什么关系？希望你在清闲且心情舒畅的状态下缓慢阅读👀
世界的幻灭 x 你我的未来 x 生活的奔头 The disillusionment of the world x our future x the rush of life
图片来源：大英图书馆 经济 x 技术 x 工作 x 家庭 工业革命一词，首先由英国经济历史学家普及，阿诺德·汤因比（Arnold Toynbee，1852-83 年）描述了英国 1760 年至 1840 年的经济发展，该术语被更广泛地应用于经济转型过程，而不是特定环境中的一段时间。在这段时间里，人类生产与制造方式逐渐转为机械化，出现了以机器取代人力、畜力的趋势，以大规模的工厂生产取代手工生产的一场革命，引发了现代的科技革命。由于机器的发明及运用成为了这个时代的标志，因此历史学家称这个时代为机器时代（the Age of Machines）。整个“革命”阶段大致经历了一百年的时间，影响范围逐渐扩展到欧洲和北美，推动了法、美、德等国的技术革新。而在中国和印度，直到 20 世纪才开始各自的第一次工业革命。
Economy x Technology x Work x Family
The term "Industrial Revolution" was first popularized by the British economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852-1883) to describe the economic development in Britain from 1760 to 1840. The term is now more widely used to refer to a process of economic transformation rather than a specific period in time. During this period, there was a gradual shift from manual labor and animal power to mechanization, with machines replacing human and animal labor, and the rise of large-scale factory production replacing artisanal production. This revolution sparked the modern technological revolution. As machines became the hallmark of this era, historians referred to it as the Age of Machines. The entire "revolutionary" phase lasted approximately a century, gradually expanding its influence to Europe and North America, driving technological innovations in countries such as France, the United States, and Germany. In China and India, their respective first industrial revolutions did not begin until the 20th century.
反映工业革命时期的绘画作品《1830年白教堂路一景》，收录于《剧变：英国工业革命》 一些农业社会如何或为何演变成工业国家并不总是完全清楚，不过可以肯定的是，在英国发生的变化18 世纪末和 19 世纪的工业革命为西欧和北美的早期工业化国家提供了原型。在现代史上，从农业和手工业经济向工业和机械制造业主导的产业转变过程引发了新的工作和生活方式，并从根本上改变了社会。工业革命发生前，英国实际上已经历过一场 金融革命（西方的经济史学家将英格兰银行的创立、公债的发行和稳固以及其他金融业的变革称为“金融革命”），金融革命不断为工业革命注入资本燃料和动力。英国经济学家、诺贝尔奖得主约翰·希克斯指出，工业革命不是技术创新的直接结果，或至少不是其直接作用的结果，而是金融革命的结果。工业革命早期使用的技术创新，大多数在工业革命之前早已有之。然而，技术革命既没有引发经济持续增长，也未导致工业革命，“工业革命不得不等候金融革命”。直到今天，在我们讨论与研究技术伦理时，仍然避不开的现实问题是，如何协调技术，经济，社会与百姓个人生活之间的系统关系。
It is not always entirely clear how or why some agricultural societies evolved into industrial nations, but what is certain is that the changes that occurred in Britain during the late 18th and 19th centuries in the form of the Industrial Revolution provided a prototype for early industrialized nations in Western Europe and North America. In modern history, the transition from an agrarian and handicraft economy to an industry and mechanized manufacturing-led industry has triggered new modes of work and life, fundamentally altering society. Before the Industrial Revolution, Britain had already undergone a Financial Revolution (western economic historians refer to the establishment of the Bank of England, the issuance and stability of public debt, and other financial industry reforms as the "Financial Revolution"), which continuously fueled and empowered the Industrial Revolution with capital. British economist and Nobel laureate John Hicks pointed out that the Industrial Revolution was not a direct result of technological innovation or, at least, not a result of its direct effect, but rather a result of the Financial Revolution. Many of the technological innovations used in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution had existed prior to it. However, the technological revolution neither triggered sustained economic growth nor led to the Industrial Revolution; the "Industrial Revolution had to wait for the Financial Revolution." Even today, when discussing and researching technological ethics, the inevitable reality remains: how to coordinate the systemic relationship between technology, economy, society, and individual lives.
CXC Illustration Economy x Tech x Society x Human
在前工业或非工业社会，家庭是生产的基本单位。其所有成员都从事一系列合作的生计活动。在 18 世纪早期的一个典型英格兰家庭中，男人可能是一名织布工，他的妻子可能是纺纱工，而年幼的孩子则在这家联合家庭企业中担任助理（小工）。与这种工资或计件劳动混合在一起的可能是耕种一小块土地来获取食物，同时利用公共土地来获取柴火以及进行游猎。家庭在这个时期是一个集体企业 其所有成员都将自己视为该集体的一部分，并将他们的贡献视为对共同储备的补充；仆人或其他非家庭成员，如学徒，被“收养”或视为家庭成员，因为除家庭关系外，不承认其他具有约束力的个人关系。家庭及其成员便是社会的一个缩影。（想起了《百鸟朝凤》里的唢呐学徒和德云社早期的师徒关系）
In pre-industrial or non-industrial societies, the family was the basic unit of production. All members of the family were involved in a range of cooperative livelihood activities. In a typical English family in the early 18th century, the man might have been a weaver, his wife could have been a spinner, and the young children would have served as assistants (apprentices) in this family-based enterprise. Mixed in with this wage or piecework labor, there might have been the cultivation of a small plot of land for food, as well as the use of common land for gathering firewood and hunting. During this period, the family functioned as a collective enterprise, and all its members regarded themselves as part of that collective and saw their contributions as supplements to the common resources. Servants or other non-family members, such as apprentices, were "adopted" or considered family members because no other binding personal relationships were recognized beyond the family. The family and its members were a microcosm of society. (This reminds me of the relationship between the "唢呐" apprentice and the early master-apprentice dynamics in the movie "百鸟朝凤" and the early days of the "德云社".)
图片来源：大英图书馆 在工业化的早期阶段，家庭可能仍可艰难的维持其传统意义的集体团结。其成员，无论是在乡村受雇为农场工人、或是在城镇担任产业职人，亦或在富裕的城市家庭中担任佣人，仍然在某种程度上延续着传统的集中资源顾全“大家”的组织生活方式，外出工作的成年人仍会经常回家，并继续将同属于一个大家庭的彼此视为一个集体（自己人）。他们的工资仍用于共同的家庭基金，该基金用于支持没有工作的年轻人和暂时失业的成员，并为生病和年老的成员提供帮助。在缺乏完善社会保障体系的情况下，家庭本身继续履行这个传统的角色和职能。在这种情况下，一个大家庭既是一种资产，也是一种负担，大家共同付出彼此依赖。因此，在相当长的一段时间内，大家庭，尤其是工人阶级，仍然是工业化社会的常态。对应到我小时候（八零年代生人）的东北家庭，稍年长的舅舅姨妈们，大抵就是用这样的方式把家里当时尚未成年的弟弟妹妹以及更小一辈的孩子们携手照顾大的。如果你对那个时期的北方大家庭生活充满了好奇，又正好有一部电影的空闲时间，欢迎你去油管翻看“六公主”高清修复版的🎬《过年》，演员阵容......你自己看吧~
In the early stages of industrialization, families may still struggle to maintain their traditional sense of collective unity. Whether they were employed as farm workers in rural areas, industrial professionals in cities, or servants in wealthy urban households, family members continued to some extent with the traditional way of organizing their lives around the collective well-being of the "extended family." Adults who worked outside the home would frequently return and continue to see each other as part of a collective (the same group people). Their wages would still contribute to a shared family fund, which was used to support young members without jobs and temporarily unemployed members, as well as to provide assistance to the sick and elderly. In the absence of a comprehensive social security system, the family itself continued to fulfill this traditional role and function. In this context, an extended family served as both an asset and a burden, with everyone contributing to each other's dependence. Therefore, for a considerable period of time, the extended family, especially the working class, remained the norm in industrialized societies.
If you are curious about the life of big families in northern China during the 1980s (assuming you were born in the 1980s), the slightly older uncles and aunts would likely take care of the younger siblings and the children of the younger generation in a similar way. If you have some free time and are interested in that period, I recommend watching the high-definition restored film "过年" on YouTube. The film provides a glimpse into the life of a large family during the Chinese New Year. You can check out the cast and other details for yourself.
黄健中《过年》，1991
影片讲述了在经济改革和社会改革过渡时期，中国北方普普通通的一大家子人在大年初一重聚，又各自分离的简单故事。主题曲由腾格尔大叔演唱，他唱了一首“公蛤蟆搂着了母蛤蟆腰”的奇妙歌曲。。。嗓音居然跟现在一模一样！？电影中的“母亲”比“父亲”大八岁（“母亲”的饰演者赵妈籍此片获1990年第4届东京国际电影节评委最佳女主角大奖），门口的雪堆是她藏肉的大冰箱；“父亲”（李保田老师饰）外出打工，一年到头年三十才回到东北老家，开心的把藏在裤腰里的一整年的辛苦钱一股脑儿的掏给他“大姐”；家里的“大哥”是做了27天教育局长又主动辞职躲清闲怕老婆的读书人，家里的“大媳妇”大哥的老婆，借着帮妈干活儿的名义，一直缠着要老人要她手上的金戒指，平日里经常在家嫌弃和揍她老公；“老二”是研究生，喜滋滋的计划着跟高干子弟的女友结伴去南方的新兴沿海城市做社（公）会（派）调（旅）查（游），深圳，珠海，青岛，上海，不过难题是虽然靠关系得到了公派考察的名义，但是这趟出行要Ta们自己出钱；“大姐和大姐夫”在同一个集体公司上班，大姐夫在保卫科工作，平日里最爱偷偷摸摸，拈花惹草，和在背后讲各种人的小道消息；偷了家里户口本私奔的“二姐”，跟做包工头的“二姐夫”这一年赚了很多钱，第一次回家，给家里所有人都买了稀罕礼物；“老儿子跟女友”都没工作，二人刚刚包宿看完了连播七场的电影，花了30元打车（三公里）回家睡觉。小两口不打算离开家里，计划着来年结婚跟爸妈住在一起“照顾爸妈”，还偷偷的准备了个一个筹款箱，趁着一家人都在的年夜饭上，当面集资办婚礼💰。“小孙子”闹闹，穿着红色的地主袍，拿着冲锋枪，怀揣压岁钱，在大人们的吵吵嚷嚷中，喝醉了酒，沉沉的睡去......勾起了很多回忆，非常推荐 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
道德失范 x 小核心家庭 x 陌生人
随着其技术的组件（例如，机械化的劳动力和对无生命能源的依赖），工业化进程带来了深刻的社会发展。将劳动者从封建礼教和习惯义务中解放出来，创造了一个自由的劳动力市场。尽管城市工业生活为个人流动和个人自由提供了前所未有的机会，但它也会造成很高的社会和心理损失。卡尔·马克思和埃米尔·涂尔干等不同的观察家引用了个体工人面临的看似毫无意义的任务和快速变化的目标异化和道德失范，这就是 - 大家庭和社区的分裂往往会 孤立个人并抵消传统价值观。在某些时候，社会还会在经济和政治上的必要阶段对居民生活产生介入，为那些因长期失业或太年轻、生病或太过老迈而无法自谋生计的社会成员提供帮助，以维持整个系统的稳定运转。因此，家庭的角色 进一步缩小到仅是 抚养孩子，甚至在城市中，这仅存的传统家庭职责也可以舍弃，或是由父母、学校、同类状况的社群团体，儿童保育机构来完成。
对于年长的已经独立步入社会的家庭成员来说，家庭只是居所、娱乐场所和一定程度的社交场所。它的成员可能会在家里度过很多时间，但Ta们的思想更多地是由外部影响形成的。Ta们的生活主要发生在家庭之外、在工作中以及与非家庭朋友和同事的交往中度过。Ta们不再需要在 集体家庭身份 中找到自己的社会身份和利益归属。其成员，男性和女性，越来越多地将他们的工资视为自己的资产，可以按照个人认为合适的方式进行处理。这种态度受到越来越多有吸引力的消费品供应所鼓舞。随着大家庭的萎缩和资产私有化， 工作也相应成为个人身份的主要来源之一。在前工业社会，谁是谁的问题很可能会根据原籍地或家庭成员身份来回答：我是河北的张三，或他是王老虎的儿子王小虎🐯。而工业社会引入了一种新的、平行的排名系统，它与前工业时代并存，在某些情况下取代了前工业社会。根据一个人在经济生产系统中的位置，或者简单来说，在消费市场中的位置，赋予一个人以特定的阶级或群体，它是一个人的身份、地位和收入的主要衡量标准。（儿时经典问题：你长大后想当…？...那现在呢?...）
失去了如此多的传统功能，家庭几乎完全成为私人生活的领域。这种脱离传统集体家庭的自由与欢愉，同时也充满了不确定性与不安全感。小核心家庭比以往任何时候都提供了更大程度的隐私和情感满足的机会，但在工业化城市所必然产生的大量社交联系中，它可能会迫使个人设置障碍来保护隐私，被迫在数不清的短暂社交中采取保留和孤立的态度。我的老家东北的人们，似乎比国内任何一个地方都更早的经历了传统大家庭的变迁与解体。也让无数个东北家庭遭遇了许许多多随之而来的集体资产分割，以及分家后个人遭遇危机时由钱财利益所引发的亲情和道义危机。很多人至今提起东北的印象都是 - 喝酒，泡澡，吹🐂🍺... 现在想想，也许是人们对苦闷生活的一种自我消解，和无奈的逃避。
The film tells the simple stories of an ordinary family in northern China reuniting on Chinese New Year's Day during the transition period of economic and social reforms and then going their separate ways. The theme song is sung by Tenger, and he sings a marvelous song called "The Male Toad Embraces the Female Toad's Waist"... Surprisingly, his voice is exactly the same as it is now!? In the movie, the "mother" is eight years older than the "father" (the actress who portrays the "mother," Zhao Lirong, won the Best Actress award at the 4th Tokyo International Film Festival in 1990 for this film). The snow heap at the door is her hiding place for meat in a large refrigerator. The "father" (played by Teacher Li Baotian) goes out to work and only returns to his hometown in northeastern China on New Year's Eve. He happily hands over all the hard-earned money he has saved throughout the year, hidden in his waistband, to his wife)." The "eldest brother" in the family is an educated person who served as the director of the education bureau for 27 days but resigned voluntarily to avoid being idle and fearing his wife's nagging. The "eldest sister-in-law" in the family is the wife of the eldest brother, who constantly pesters the elderly for the gold ring on her hand under the pretense of helping her mother with housework. She often despises and beats her husband at home. The "second son" is a graduate student who happily plans to go to emerging coastal cities in the south with his girlfriend, who comes from a well-connected family, to do a social investigation and travel. However, the problem is that although they have obtained the opportunity for an official study tour through connections, they have to pay for the trip themselves. The "elder sister and brother-in-law" both work in the same collective company. The brother-in-law works in the security department and loves to engage in secret affairs and spread gossip about others behind their backs. The "second sister" eloped with the "second brother-in-law" who is a construction contractor and made a lot of money that year. When she returned home for the first time, she bought rare gifts for everyone in the family. The "eldest son and his girlfriend" are unemployed and have just finished watching seven consecutive movie screenings by staying in a cheap hotel. They spent 30 yuan to take a taxi (three kilometers) home and go to sleep. The young couple does not plan to leave their parents' home and intends to get married the following year and live with their parents to "take care of them." They secretly prepared a fundraising box and planned to collect funds for their wedding during the New Year's Eve dinner when everyone was present. The "young grandson" is mischievous, wearing a red landlord robe, holding a submachine gun, and carrying lucky money. In the midst of the adults' quarrels, he gets drunk and falls into a deep sleep... It evokes many memories and is highly recommended. 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Moral Decay x Atomized Family x Strangers
With the advent of technology (such as mechanized labor and reliance on non-living energy sources), the process of industrialization has brought profound social developments. It liberated workers from feudal customs and customary obligations, creating a free labor market. While urban industrial life provided unprecedented opportunities for individual mobility and personal freedom, it also led to high social and psychological costs. Observers such as Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim cited the apparent meaninglessness of individual workers' tasks and the alienation and moral decay resulting from rapidly changing goals in the industrialized society. The splintering of the extended family and community often isolates individuals and undermines traditional values. At certain times, society intervenes in the lives of residents during necessary stages of economic and political development to provide assistance to those who cannot support themselves due to long-term unemployment, being too young, sick, or too old, in order to maintain the stability of the entire system. As a result, the role of the family is further reduced to simply raising children, and even in urban areas, this remaining traditional family responsibility can be discarded or fulfilled by parents, schools, peer communities, or childcare institutions.
For older family members who have already entered society independently, the family is merely a residence, a place of entertainment, and a social venue to some extent. They may spend a lot of time at home, but their thoughts are shaped more by external influences. Their lives primarily take place outside the family, at work, and in interactions with non-family friends and colleagues. They no longer need to find their social identity and interest in the collective family identity. Its members, both men, and women, increasingly view their wages as their own assets that they can handle in ways they deem appropriate. This attitude is encouraged by the availability of increasingly attractive consumer goods. With the decline of the extended family and the privatization of assets, work has also become a primary source of individual identity. In pre-industrial society, the question of who one is likely would have been answered based on place of origin or family membership: "I am Zhang San from Hebei," or "He is Wang Xiao Hu, son of Wang Lao Hu." The industrial society introduced a new, parallel ranking system that coexisted with and, in some cases, replaced the pre-industrial society. Depending on a person's position in the economic production system or, in simple terms, their position in the consumer market, it ascribes a specific class or group to an individual, which becomes the primary measure of their identity, status, and income. (A classic childhood question: What do you want to be when you grow up...? And now?...)
Having lost so many traditional functions, the family has become almost exclusively a realm of private life. This freedom and pleasure of detachment from the traditional extended family is also fraught with uncertainty and insecurity. The nuclear family provides greater opportunities for privacy and emotional satisfaction than ever before, but the vast social connections inherent in urbanization, it may force individuals to erect barriers to protect their privacy and compel them to adopt a reserved and isolated attitude in countless fleeting social interactions. People from my hometown in Northeast China seem to have experienced the transformation and disintegration of the traditional extended family earlier than anywhere else in the country. Countless Northeastern families have faced the subsequent division of collective assets and the crisis of kinship and morality triggered by financial interests during personal crises. Many people's impression of Northeast China is still - drinking, bathing, bragging... Now, thinking back, perhaps it was a self-dissolution of a dreary life and a helpless escape.
1870-1940美国计酬从业者就职分布时代变迁
工业化 x 城市化 x 消失的乡野
工业化城市，极大地推进了贸易和制造业的增长。为了服务于这些活动，它需要集中的生产、分销、交换和信贷场所。它需要一个定期的通信和运输系统。它成倍地要求政治当局建立可靠的铸币、标准的度量衡系统、合理程度的道路保护和安全以及定期执法。所有这些发展都有助于城市化的巨大发展。在典型的农业社会中，90% 或更多的人口是农村人口，而在工业社会，90% 或更多人口居住在城市中的情况并不少见。工业化城市的增长可以通过以下例子来说明。1801 年，在英国大约五分之一的人口居住在人口超过 10,000 人的城镇。到 1851 年，五分之二的人口城市化了；据当年的人口普查数据，如果包括 5,000人以上的小城镇，一半以上的人口可以算作城市化。世界上第一个工业社会也已成为第一个真正的城市社会。到 1901 年，即维多利亚女王去世的那一年，人口普查记录了四分之三的人口为城市人口（人口超过 10,000 的城市占三分之二，人口超过 20,000 的城市占一半）。在一个世纪的时间里，一个以农村为主的社会变成了一个以城市为主的社会。
随着工业化的进行，这种模式在欧洲和世界范围内重复出现。19 世纪初，欧洲大陆（不包括俄罗斯）的城市化率不到 10%，相对于 10,000 或更多的城市而言；到本世纪末，城市化率约为 30%（在 10 万或以上的城市为 10%），到 20 世纪末，城市人口约为 78%。在里面1800年的美国，只有 6% 的人口居住在 2,500 人或以上的城镇；1920 年的人口普查报告称，第一次超过一半的美国人口居住在城市。到 20 世纪末，这一比例上升到 77% ——与日本的城市人口 ——不到五分之二的人口居住在 100 万或更多人口的大都市区。就整个世界而言，1800 年居住在 20,000 人或更多城市的人口不超过 2.5%；到 1965 年，这一比例增加到 25%，到 1980 年达到 40%。按照这一衡量标准，2000 年世界人口中略少于一半的人口可以归类为城市人口。这一趋势伴随着非常大城市的大幅增长，这种类型在前工业化世界中几乎是未知的。1800 年，世界上最大的城市北京有 110 万居民。一百年后，世界上最大的城市是伦敦，拥有 650 万人口。1900 年人口超过 100 万的城市有 16 个，1950 年有 67 个，1985 年有 250 个。2000 年，16 个城市的人口超过 600 万。目前2021年，世界上最大的城市，是日本的东京，拥有3700万人口。
与人口增长一样，城市增长速度最快的是欠发达国家。无法自给自足的农村人口迅速增长，人们奔向城市寻求机会，尽管在许多情况下这是一个危险的选择。1900 年至 1950 年间，世界人口整体增长了 50%，而城市人口增长了 254%；亚洲城市增长率为 444%，非洲为 629%。21 世纪初，非洲和亚洲的城市化率超过 40%。圣保罗、墨西哥城、孟买和上海等城市如雨后春笋般与西方发达城市的大城市竞争甚至超过其规模。但是，不能简单地通过城市增长的统计数据来理解城市化，尽管欠发达国家的城市化重复了西方国家的一些更令人沮丧的特征——过度拥挤、不卫生的条件和失业——但真正缺乏的是城市化所推动的经济增长补偿和应对相应问题所采取的补救措施。除了少数例外，大部分欠发达地区理解了 脱离工业化 的城市化，结果导致大城市边缘的贫民窟迅速增长。据估计，拉丁美洲和加勒比地区约有 1 亿人生活在贫民窟中。但无论他们对城市生活感到遗憾还是称赞，大多数评论家都同意，随着工业化，城市与整个社会建立了一种新关系。随着工业城市化，农村现在变得依赖城市。它成为单一经济体系不可或缺的一部分。农村基本上没有人了（这里指欧洲），现在实际上只是城市中商人和银行家的另一个产业经营场所。政治和经济权力继续驻留在城市；工业和金融公司取代个体业主成为主要的土地所有者。除了在很大程度上作为游客古朴静修的零星场所外，脱离城市机制的乡野生活，正在消失。剩下的“乡野生活”往往是产品策划撰稿人手中一个对都市人来说颇有说服力的消费主题，以城市居民的幻想为食。
Industrialization x Urbanization x Disappearing Rural Life
Industrialization in cities has greatly accelerated the growth of trade and manufacturing. To serve these activities, it requires centralized places for production, distribution, exchange, and credit. It needs a regular system of communication and transportation. It demands political authorities to establish reliable coinage, standard systems of measurement, a reasonable level of road protection and safety, and regular enforcement. All these developments contribute to the tremendous growth of urbanization. In a typical agricultural society, 90% or more of the population is rural, while in an industrial society, it is not uncommon for 90% or more of the population to reside in cities. The growth of industrialized cities can be illustrated by the following examples. In 1801, about one-fifth of the population in Britain lived in towns with populations exceeding 10,000. By 1851, two-fifths of the population had urbanized; according to the census data of that year, if small towns with populations exceeding 5,000 were included, more than half of the population could be classified as urbanized. The world's first industrial society had become the first truly urban society. By 1901, the year of Queen Victoria's death, the census recorded three-quarters of the population as urban (two-thirds in cities with populations exceeding 10,000 and half in cities with populations exceeding 20,000). In a century, a predominantly rural society transformed into a predominantly urban society.
As industrialization progressed, this pattern repeated itself in Europe and worldwide. In the early 19th century, the urbanization rate in continental Europe (excluding Russia) was less than 10% relative to cities with populations of 10,000 or more; by the end of the century, the urbanization rate was around 30% (10% in cities with populations of 100,000 or more), and by the end of the 20th century, the urban population was approximately 78%. In the United States in 1800, only 6% of the population lived in towns with populations of 2,500 or more; the 1920 census report stated that for the first time, more than half of the U.S. population lived in cities. By the end of the 20th century, this proportion had risen to 77%—less than two-fifths of the population lived in metropolitan areas with populations of 1 million or more. Globally, in 1800, less than 2.5% of the population lived in cities with populations of 20,000 or more; by 1965, this proportion had increased to 25%, reaching 40% by 1980. By this measure, slightly less than half of the world's population in the year 2000 could be classified as urban. This trend has been accompanied by the significant growth of mega-cities, a type that was almost unknown in the pre-industrial world. In 1800, the largest city in the world, Beijing, had a population of 1.1 million. One hundred years later, London became the largest city in the world with a population of 6.5 million. In 1900, there were 16 cities with populations exceeding 1 million; in 1950, there were 67; in 1985, there were 250. In 2000, 16 cities had populations exceeding 6 million. As of 2021, the world's largest city is Tokyo, Japan, with a population of 37 million.
As population growth, the fastest-growing urbanization is taking place in underdeveloped countries. The rural population, unable to be self-sufficient, is rapidly increasing, and people are flocking to cities in search of opportunities, although in many cases, it is a risky choice. From 1900 to 1950, the world population grew by 50%, while the urban population grew by 254%; Asian cities grew at a rate of 444%, and Africa at 629%. In the early 21st century, the urbanization rate in Africa and Asia exceeded 40%. Cities such as São Paulo, Mexico City, Mumbai, and Shanghai have emerged and grown rapidly, competing with and even surpassing Western developed cities in scale. However, understanding urbanization cannot be simply based on statistical data of urban growth. While urbanization in underdeveloped countries has replicated some of the more distressing features of Western countries—overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and unemployment—the true lack is the economic growth compensation propelled by urbanization and the remedial measures taken to address corresponding issues. Apart from a few exceptions, much of the underdeveloped regions understood urbanization as detached from industrialization, resulting in the rapid growth of slums on the outskirts of major cities. It is estimated that approximately 100 million people live in slums in Latin America and the Caribbean. But whether they view urban life with regret or praise, most critics agree that with industrialization, cities have established a new relationship with society as a whole. With industrial urbanization, the countryside, now dependent on cities, has become an integral part of a single economic system. The rural population is essentially nonexistent (in the European context), and it is now essentially another industrial enterprise location for merchants and bankers in cities. Political and economic power continues to reside in cities; industrial and financial companies have replaced individual owners as the primary landowners. Rural life, detached from urban mechanisms, is disappearing, except as sporadic places of quaint retreat and introspection, which often serve as a compelling consumption theme in the hands of product planners and copywriters for urban dwellers' fantasies.
摄影 Sickgirl 市民甲 “流动人”乔治 First Citizen "The Floater Georg"
CXC Illustration Georg Simmel 倒霉蛋儿老齐，乔治·齐美尔 (Georg Simmel) 1858年生于柏林一个信仰基督教的犹太商人家庭，是家里七个孩子中的老小儿，之所以叫他“倒霉蛋儿”，是因为从工作经历来看，他一路上波折不断，一辈子逆风飞扬。在柏林大学学习历史和哲学，一路苦读，23岁由于形式错误和论文缺乏准确性（学术规范不达标），齐美尔的第一篇博士论文“音乐起源的心理-民族学研究”未被接受。然而，在其审稿人的建议下，该学院接受了获奖论文“康德关于物质本质的不同观点的陈述和评估”作为论文，获得哲学博士资格留校任私人讲师（因为老齐的课广受欢迎，还吸引了不少校外社会人士来听。被部分同僚👀作走运气靠关系的学术圈外人）。40岁，学校再次帮他申请正式岗位，但由于当时的反犹太主义，和他始终被学术圈视作局外人的原因被拒。1900年学校又试了一次，终于申请特聘职位成功，同年发表的主要著作《货币哲学》中，齐美尔论述了现代社会中非个人关系的增加以及这对个人的冲突后果。在1903年发表的 “大城市与精神生活” 一文中，齐美尔描绘了现代生活环境加速的画面，现在来看齐美尔当真是那个时代最精明的当代分析家之一。然而，有了正式职称的老齐，却依然没有脱离学术圈儿同人的伏击。1903 年市政博览会，齐美尔和其他学者举行的学术会议在实际的博览会之前举行，旨在为博览会本身准备知识基础，由格赫基金会赞助并针对那些对人文科学感兴趣的广大公众。这些演讲稿被收录在基金会年鉴的一卷中，由萨克森统计学家西奥多·彼得曼编辑。除了齐美尔的贡献，年鉴还包含经济学家卡尔·布歇尔、地理学家弗里德里希·拉策尔、统计学家格奥尔格·冯·迈尔、经济学家海因里希·欧根·瓦恩蒂格和历史学家迪特里希·谢弗的文章。主编彼得曼在编辑会议论文集的过程中夹枪带棒的插入了一段他自己关于城市知识分子生活的文字作为对齐美尔的批评，指责老齐通过谈论（城市居民而非城市）个人的主观反应而脱离了本书的整体主题，没有对城市本身做出贡献。这在今天来看依然是个似是而非的指责，因为我们现在知道他的学者同行们对齐美尔的阴谋，包括当时参与该文集的历史学家谢弗，后来针对齐美尔写下了一篇充满反犹太主义比喻的评估（总之就是看不过老齐身份和学术理念的人挺多，经常对他左右开弓，上下其手）。1908年，老齐已经50岁啦 ✿✿ヽ(°▽°)ノ✿，海德堡大学哲学系希望为齐美尔填补教授的职位，就连马克斯·韦伯（另一个后来的著名社会学家）也很支持他。然而，惨遭政府无情拒绝，因为参与泛德协会的柏林历史学家迪特里希·谢弗 (Dietrich Schäfer，对，就是👆的那个谢弗) 诋毁齐美尔为“彻头彻尾的以色列人”，并否认社会学是一门科学。1911年，弗莱堡大学政治学院授予齐美尔荣誉博士学位。1914年，齐美尔在斯特拉斯堡大学（今法国斯特拉斯堡）获得教授职位，4年后就去世了。在1908年的《社会学.社会化形式的调查》一书中，齐美尔通过对形式的分析建立了微观社会学，这也是第一次，在学术界有人将日常生活作为讨论对象加以科学方式的研究。值得简要讨论一下齐美尔的文章如何与另一部关于城市的社会学思想的伟大经典马克斯·韦伯 (Max Weber) (1958) 的 《城市》相比较。韦伯的研究是在齐美尔之后近 20 年写成的，是历史的、比较的和类型学的，因此是宏观的，而齐美尔的论文是微观的。西格蒙德 (1993)曾说过，齐美尔的随笔对大都市生活的戏剧性感觉，不可能由一生大部分时间都在古色古香的海德堡环境中工作的韦伯写出（齐美尔主张社会研究者要有远方之见，走进社会生活中去关注寻常人）。然而，与齐美尔不同的是，韦伯并不认为非人际关系是城市生活的固有组成部分。相反，他表示，非人格化的程度取决于文化条件。受韦伯工作影响的学者追求“韦伯式”研究计划，专注于市场和国家等机构的发展。尽管在风格和方法上存在这些差异，但两者都强调个人自由和城市中的更多选择，怀着相同志向的两位学者，一个走进了人群，一个走向了系统。以下，是我对老齐的话进行的一些零零散散的收集与汇总，放在今天来看，依然耐人寻味。 金钱至上 x 主观幸福感的丢失 齐美尔在1900年发表的《货币哲学》里说到：“金钱成了上帝，因为它已经指向绝对目标的绝对工具。在现代社会，银行比寺庙、教堂更多、更有势力。”把金钱等同于生活信仰，会导致人们的在人际互动和人际交往过程中会变得越来越精于计算，更加的工具理性，并且把人和人之间的交往，吃饭，社交，都和是不是可以获得利益与金钱，获得好处挂上等号。这样的话，人和人之间的亲情，温情，友情，爱情，情趣，情感，就完全被消除了，取而代之的是一种冷酷无情的关系。齐美尔提出这些观点时，是第一次工业革命时期，而100年后的今天，好像世人对于金钱的追求并没有发生本质的改变，人们的生活方式不断的被无处不在的消费系统所影响，忽然被无限拉高的“生活规格”通过无处不在的信息技术被社会中几乎所有人所“看到和理解”。而同时，古典经济学的投入和产出关系正在发生改变，耕耘与收获，生产与所得之间的稳定关系，却在很多新兴经济领域断裂了。努力努力再努力，也不一定会有所回报。“但金钱只是通向最终价值的桥梁，而人是无法栖居在桥上的。”齐美尔倡导人仍应保有个体的自由权，在金钱与消费之外拓展视野与可能 —— 例如建立基于精神交往的社交圈子。 Unlucky Egg: Georg Simmel
Georg Simmel, born in 1858 into a Christian-Jewish merchant family in Berlin, was the youngest of seven children. He was nicknamed the "unlucky egg" because, based on his work experience, he faced continuous setbacks and struggled throughout his life. Simmel studied history and philosophy at the University of Berlin, diligently pursuing his studies. However, at the age of 23, his first doctoral dissertation on "The Psychological-Ethnological Study of the Origin of Music" was rejected due to formal errors and lack of accuracy in his thesis (not meeting academic standards). Nonetheless, based on the advice of his reviewers, the university accepted an award-winning essay he had written, titled "A Statement and Evaluation of Kant's Different Views on the Essence of Matter," granting him a doctorate in philosophy and appointing him as a private lecturer (due to the popularity of his courses, attracting many non-academic individuals to attend, some colleagues regarded him as lucky, relying on connections outside the academic circle). At the age of 40, the university made another attempt to secure a regular position for him, but due to prevalent anti-Semitism at the time and his perpetual status as an outsider in the academic circle, he was rejected. In 1900, the university tried again, and finally, he successfully obtained a special appointment position. In the same year, he published his major work "Philosophy of Money," in which Simmel discussed the increase of non-personal relationships in modern society and the resulting conflicts for individuals. In his 1903 publication "The Metropolis and Mental Life," Simmel depicted the accelerating pace of modern life, and in retrospect, Simmel was truly one of the most astute contemporary analysts of that era. However, even with his formal title, Simmel was still not exempt from attacks by his academic peers. In 1903, during the Municipal Exposition, an academic conference held by Simmel and other scholars before the actual exposition aimed to provide a knowledge basis for the exposition itself, the lectures were sponsored by the Görke Foundation and aimed at a broad audience interested in the humanities. These lecture texts were included in one volume of the foundation's annual journal, edited by Saxon statistician Theodor Petersen. In addition to Simmel's contribution, the yearbook also contained articles by economists Karl Bücher, geographer Friedrich Ratzel, statistician Georg von Mayr, economist Heinrich Eugen von Wenzel, and historian Dietrich Schäfer. The editor-in-chief Petersen, in the process of editing the conference proceedings, inserted a section of his own critique of Simmel's work on the intellectual life of the city, accusing Simmel of deviating from the overall theme of the book by focusing on subjective responses of individuals (city residents rather than the city itself) and not making a contribution to the city itself. Today, this accusation still seems ambiguous, as we now know about the conspiracy against Simmel by his scholarly peers, including historian Schäfer, who participated in the publication and later wrote an assessment of Simmel full of anti-Semitic metaphors (in short, many people couldn't tolerate Simmel's identity and academic ideas and frequently attacked him). In 1908, when Simmel turned 50 ✿✿ヽ(°▽°)ノ✿, the Philosophy Department at Heidelberg University hoped to fill a professorship position with Simmel, even Max Weber (another later famous sociologist) strongly supported him. However, he was ruthlessly rejected by the government due to the slanderous remarks of Berlin historian Dietrich Schäfer, who was involved with the Pan-German Association, labeling Simmel as a "thorough Israelite" and denying that sociology is a science. In 1911, Simmel received an honorary doctorate from the Political Science School at the University of Freiburg. In 1914, he obtained a professorship at the University of Strasbourg (now Strasbourg, France), but four years later, he passed away. In his book "Sociology: Investigations on the Forms of Sociation" published in 1908, Simmel established micro sociology through formal analysis, which was the first scientific study to discuss everyday life as an object of scientific inquiry. It is worth briefly discussing how Simmel's work compares to another great classic in sociological thought about the city, Max Weber's "The City" (1958). Weber's research was written nearly 20 years after Simmel's and was historical, comparative, and typological, hence macroscopic, while Simmel's essay was microscopic. Sigmund Freud (1993) once said that Simmel's essays on the dramatic sense of urban life could not have been written by Weber, who spent most of his life working in the charming environment of Heidelberg (Simmel advocated that social researchers should have a broader vision and engage with social life to pay attention to ordinary people). However, unlike Simmel, Weber did not believe that non-personal relationships were an inherent part of urban life. Instead, he stated that the degree of impersonalization depended on cultural conditions. Scholars influenced by Weber's work pursued a "Weberian" research agenda, focusing on the development of institutions such as markets and states. Despite these differences in style and approach, both emphasized individual freedom and the greater choices available in the city, with two scholars sharing the same aspiration—one immersing himself in the crowd, the other delving into systems. The following are some scattered collections and summaries of Simmel's words, which are still thought-provoking when viewed today.
Money Above All x Loss of Subjective Well-Being
In Simmel's 1900 work "Philosophy of Money," he stated, "Money has become God because it points to the absolute means of absolute goals. In modern society, banks are more numerous and powerful than temples and churches." Equating money with the belief in life leads to people becoming increasingly calculating and instrumental in their interpersonal interactions and relationships. Interactions such as eating, socializing, and relationships between people are all equated with whether or not one can gain monetary benefits and advantages. In this way, the warmth and affection in relationships such as family, friendship, and love are completely eliminated, replaced by a ruthless and unfeeling attitude. When Simmel made these observations, it was during the first Industrial Revolution, and today, it seems that people's pursuit of money has not fundamentally changed. People's lifestyles are continuously influenced by ubiquitous consumption systems, and the suddenly heightened "standard of living" is "seen and understood" by almost everyone in society through pervasive information technology. At the same time, the stable relationship between input and output in classical economics, the relationship between cultivation and harvest, production and income, has been disrupted in many emerging economic sectors. Hard work and effort may not necessarily yield rewards. "But money is only a bridge to the ultimate value, and people cannot dwell on the bridge." Simmel advocated that individuals should still maintain their freedom outside of money and consumption, expanding their perspectives and possibilities—for example, by establishing social circles based on spiritual interactions.
CXC Illustration Georg Simmel
大都市 x 精神生活
在小城镇，生活主要建立在性情和情感的关系上，这些关系根植于灵魂更无意识的层次，更有可能从不间断的习惯的安静规律中成长起来（随着城市化的蔓延，很多正逐渐城市化的小城镇并不在此列）。大都市一直是金融经济的发源地，经济活动的多样性和密度将货币作为一种交换手段的重要性提升到了它在农村地区稀少的货物贸易中永远无法达到的水平。货币经济和智力的统治是紧密相连的，两者在对待人和财物时都讲究实事求是，常常与形式正义相结合。另一方面，智力是我们内在能力中最具有适应力的；与我们保守的性格不同，与形式正义绑定的智力不需要轻易动摇和破坏来接受不断变化和矛盾的现象。典型的大城市居民的人际关系和业务往往是多样和复杂的，特别是由于许多不同兴趣的人的集中导致一个复杂的有机体，如果承诺和交付不准时，就会崩溃造成系统性混乱。因此，典型的都市人不是根据Ta的性格做出反应，而是主要依赖于Ta的智力，这种理智，我们认为是主观生活抵御大都市袭击的一种防御，它与许多其他现象纠缠在一起。与之矛盾的是人与人之间的亲密性情关系，往往建立在他们的个性之上，而智力关系则将人视为计算中的数字，只对他们所承载的客观权重感兴趣。齐美尔认为现代都市生活最深层次的问题，源于社会系统中的个人渴望捍卫自己生存的自主性和个性。消费主义非常成功的说服了世界，长期以来让我们高估了财富的重要性，同时低估了自我个性在生活中的必要性，个体很可能要在老年之后才发现（现在可能这个时间提前到了35岁？），这样哪里不太对。。千篇一律地机械工作（齐美尔指出，无特色就是理性工作者们职业活动的特色），追求高效率，追求经济效益，很容易让人的个体价值遭受否定。如果对金钱与财富的追逐并非基于满足生活所需的立场，而是对欲望的无止境的所求，很可能的一种结果是，没有赚够钱，又过度的消耗了个人尊严，生命力，以及对理智系统以外大千世界的好奇心。马克思在1859年发表的《政治经济学批判》序言中说到一段话，我看不懂但觉得刚好可以放在这里：“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。不是人们的意识决定人们的存在，相反，是人们的社会存在决定人们的意识。”什么是社会存在是一个本体论问题，社会存在的本质在于人们在社会生活中的生产中的相互关系，它最基本的方面是人们的生产关系。
我们今天的生活面临着大大小小的系统性困境，追求平等，就意味着要实现平均化，每个社会成员都能实现各种资源（教育资源、文化资源、娱乐资源等）的公平与共享，让每个社会成员几乎没有差异性；而想要追求个性自由，就意味着不能“一刀切”，搞“平均主义”，这样就需要冲破平等的禁锢，打破平等的束缚。自由与平等本就是被绑定在一起充满矛盾的共同体。科技，教育，工作与人们的生活形态，每每在社会变迁过渡期时，便不得不一同携手走上一条探寻未来的变革之路。
在最开始我们提到了一点老齐的身世，写到这里再翻回去看时发现我没注意的另一半内容。齐美尔的父亲是位成功的商人，父亲去世时他16岁，受家庭的一位朋友的监护，并从他那里继承了一笔可观的遗产，这使得他得以在以后的岁月里潜心追求一种 自在的学术生活。一生交友甚广，如马克斯·韦伯等人都是他家中举办的沙龙的常客。1881年获柏林大学博士学位，后在该校任副教授、编制外教授。1914年转任斯特拉斯堡大学教授。小时候经常听到大人常说的一句话就是，吃人家的嘴短，拿人家的手短。恩...... 这样看来一生不差钱而又乐于做学术的老齐，也许，过的一点也不惨。
钱💰让人 畏手畏脚
Metropolis x Spiritual Life
In small towns, life is primarily based on relationships rooted in temperament and emotions, which grow from the quieter rhythms of habitual patterns at the deeper levels of the soul (although many small towns that are gradually urbanizing may not fit this description). The metropolis has always been the birthplace of finance and economics, and the diversity and density of economic activities elevate the importance of money as an exchange medium to a level that can never be achieved in the scarce commodity trade of rural areas. Monetary economy and intellectual domination are closely intertwined, as both emphasize pragmatism and are often combined with formal justice when dealing with people and possessions. On the other hand, intelligence is the most adaptive of our inherent capabilities. Unlike our conservative nature, intelligence bound to formal justice does not require easy wavering and destruction to accept constantly changing and contradictory phenomena. The interpersonal relationships and transactions of typical urban residents are often diverse and complex, especially due to the concentration of people with different interests, resulting in a complex organism. If commitments and deliveries are not timely, the system collapses, causing systematic chaos. Therefore, typical urbanites react not based on their personalities but primarily rely on their intelligence. This rationality, which we consider a defense against the onslaught of the metropolis in subjective life, becomes entangled with many other phenomena. In contrast, intimate emotional relationships between individuals are often built upon their personalities, while intellectual relationships view people as numbers in calculations and are only interested in the objective weight they carry. Simmel believed that the deepest problem of modern urban life lies in individuals' desire within the social system to defend their autonomy and individuality. Consumerism has been very successful in persuading the world and has long caused us to overestimate the importance of wealth while underestimating the necessity of individual personality in life. Individuals may only discover this after their old age (now perhaps this time is advancing to the age of 35?), which doesn't seem quite right... Mechanical work that is monotonous (Simmel pointed out that the lack of distinctiveness is the characteristic of rational workers' professional activities), the pursuit of efficiency, and the pursuit of economic benefits can easily lead to the negation of individual worth. If the pursuit of money and wealth is not based on the position of satisfying life's needs but rather an endless pursuit of desires, one possible outcome is not earning enough money while excessively consuming one's dignity, vitality, and curiosity about the vast world beyond the rational system. In the preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" published in 1859, Karl Marx said a sentence that I don't understand, but I think it fits perfectly here: "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." What social existence is a question of ontology, and the essence of social existence lies in the interrelationships of people in their productive activities in social life, with the most fundamental aspect being their production relations.
Today, our lives face systemic dilemmas of all sizes. Pursuing equality means achieving averageization, where every member of society can achieve fairness and sharing of various resources (educational resources, cultural resources, entertainment resources, etc.), making every member of society almost indistinguishable from one another. However, if we desire individual freedom, it means we cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach or pursue "egalitarianism," which requires breaking free from the confinement of equality and breaking free from the constraints of equality. Freedom and equality are inherently contradictory entities. Technology, education, work, and people's way of life must all embark on a transformative path of exploring the future together during times of social transition.
At the beginning, we mentioned a bit about Simmel's background, and looking back now, I noticed another part of the content I missed. Simmel's father was a successful businessman, and when his father passed away when Simmel was 16 years old, he was placed under the guardianship of a family friend and inherited a considerable inheritance, which allowed him to pursue an academic life free from worries in the years to come. He had a wide circle of friends, including Max Weber, who were frequent guests at the salons held in his home. In 1881, he received his doctoral degree from the University of Berlin and later served as an associate professor and non-tenure professor at the university. In 1914, he transferred to the University of Strasbourg as a professor. When I was a child, I often heard adults say, "Gifts blind the eyes" Hmmm... Looking at it this way, Simmel, who had a gift from family and enjoyed pursuing academia, perhaps didn't have such a bad life after all.
Money 💰 makes people hesitate and fearful.
市民乙 “有骨气”的 卡尔 Second Citizen "Backbone Karl"
CXC Illustration Karl Jaspers
精神病学家和哲学家卡尔·雅斯贝尔斯 (Karl Jaspers，1883 – 1969 年) 是存在主义哲学最重要的代表之一，他还发展了存在主义技术哲学。他年幼时得过一串怪病，使他无法进行爬山、骑马、跳舞等激烈的运动。于是，他长期过着单调的生活，显得十分孤独而又很难与别人进行沟通（能躺着就不坐着，后面我配了一张他晚年躺在沙发上看资料的插图，朋友描述去他家做客的场景经常让人感觉是在被皇帝召见）。除了公务，他从没有去过公共场所。在海德堡担任精神病医生期间，雅斯贝尔斯接触到了马克斯·韦伯，以及围绕韦伯的其他知识分子。他在《现代人》（1931 年）一书中提出的早期技术概念围绕着人类社会向大规模机械化文化的转变展开。他对这种转变的初步评估是否定的。他写到技术的妖魔化，将技术描述为一种独立的力量，它被人类召唤而存在，但现在已经转向反对Ta们。Jaspers 认为，技术将人类社会转变为大众文化，使人类与自身和周围的世界疏远。Jaspers 认为大规模统治是技术发展和人口增长之间密切相互作用的副产品，这导致大量人类的生存变得完全依赖于技术。这种依赖需要非常具体的社会和文化形成。除了劳动力的机械化，社会还需要一个运转顺畅的官僚组织才能保持运转，雅斯贝尔斯将其描述为机器。这种由工人、机器和官僚机构组成的机构越来越多地决定了人类的日常生活方式。它有两种不同但相关的效果。首先，它的大规模生产系统促进了人类生活与物质环境的同质化。人类的依恋很难依附于批量生产的对象，这些对象仅作为一般形式的示例存在，并且主要存在于它们的功能方面。其次，该装置不是将人类视为独特的个体，而是作为原则上可互换的功能的实现社会技术变革的两种影响都阻碍了人类作为真实存在的存在，阻碍人类真实地生活并接近周围世界（这一观点跟齐美尔对消费主义社会下人与自我和世界的关系解读挺像的）。
Psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) is one of the most important representatives of existentialist philosophy and also developed existentialist technical philosophy. He suffered from a series of peculiar illnesses in his youth, which prevented him from engaging in vigorous activities such as mountain climbing, horseback riding, and dancing. As a result, he lived a monotonous life and appeared very lonely, making it difficult for him to communicate with others (he would lie down instead of sitting, and I've included an illustration of him lying on a couch in his later years; friends often described visiting him as being received by an emperor). Besides official duties, he never went to public places. During his time as a psychiatrist in Heidelberg, Jaspers came into contact with Max Weber and other intellectuals associated with Weber. His early concept of technology, as presented in his book "Man in the Modern Age" (1931), revolved around the transition of human society to a mass mechanized culture. His initial assessment of this transformation was negative. He wrote about the demonization of technology, describing it as an independent force that came into existence by human summons but has now turned against them. Jaspers believed that technology transformed human society into a mass culture, alienating humans from themselves and the surrounding world. He saw the mass rule as a byproduct of the interplay between technological development and population growth, leading to the complete dependence of large populations on technology. This dependence required specific social and cultural formations. In addition to the mechanization of labor, society also required a smoothly functioning bureaucratic organization to maintain operation, which Jaspers described as a machine. This institutional apparatus, consisting of workers, machines, and bureaucratic institutions, increasingly determined the daily way of life for humans. It had two distinct but related effects. Firstly, its mass production systems facilitated the homogenization of human life with the material environment. Human attachments became difficult to form with mass-produced objects that exist merely as general exemplifications primarily in their functional aspects. Secondly, the apparatus treated humans not as unique individuals but as implementers of interchangeable functions, hindering authentic human existence and impeding humans from truly living and engaging with the surrounding world (this perspective is similar to Simmel's interpretation of the relationship between individuals, selves, and the world in a consumerist society).
CXC Illustration Karl Jaspers
二战后，雅斯贝尔斯对技术的分析改变了方向。在《历史的起源与目标》（1949 年）和《原子弹与人类的未来》（1958 年）中，雅斯贝尔斯没有将技术视为对真实人类生存的威胁，而是将技术视为其中的利害关系。他的结论是，技术最终是中性的，或者只不过是实现人类目标的一种手段，因为它无法产生自己的目标。这种中立性使人类对他们创造的技术负责：技术需要人类的指导。人类的任务是重申对技术的主权。雅斯贝尔斯后来的观点使他不仅能够辨别技术的威胁性方面，而且能够辨别技术开辟新的存在可能性的方式。这些包括通过理解技术运作背后的自然法则，重新接近现实；对技术结构之美的认可；以及利用媒体和交通技术带来的可能性，使人类能够将地球作为一个整体来体验，并为此感到负责。
After World War II, Jaspers' analysis of technology took a different direction. In his works "The Origin and Goal of History" (1949) and "The Atomic Bomb and the Future of Humanity" (1958), Jaspers no longer saw technology as a threat to authentic human existence but rather as a matter of interest and consequences. His conclusion was that technology is ultimately neutral or merely a means to achieve human goals, as it cannot generate its own objectives. This neutrality holds humans accountable for the technology they create: technology requires human guidance. The task of humans is to reassert sovereignty over technology. Jaspers' later views enabled him not only to discern the threatening aspects of technology but also to recognize the ways in which technology opens up new possibilities of existence. These include re-establishing a closer connection to reality by understanding the natural laws underlying technological operations, appreciating the beauty of technological structures, and utilizing the possibilities brought by media and transportation technologies to enable humans to experience the Earth as a whole and feel responsible for it.
CXC Illustration Karl Jaspers
以下引述说明了雅斯贝尔斯如何认为我们通过非独特的人工制品失去了与世界的联系：“就日常生活而言，技术进步的结果是，生活必需品的供应值得信赖，但以某种方式使我们对它们不那么高兴，因为它们来到我们面前是理所当然的，而不是一种积极的满足感所带来的津津乐道。由于可以立即获得更多材料以换取金钱，它们缺乏个人努力产生的香气。生活用品大量供应，用完，变成垃圾被扔掉；它们很容易互换，一个样本和另一个一样的好。在大量生产的制成品中，并没有试图实现独特而珍贵的品质，生产出超越时尚的个性化产品，是一种会被精心珍爱的产品。
消除人类与其世界之间的主观联系对人类赋予其存在形式的方式产生巨大影响。雅斯贝尔斯认为，人类需要这样一种与世界的依恋，才能实现自己的个性。只有这样，世界才能成为他们的世界—— 一个不仅允许部分匿名运作而且允许个人参与的环境；在这种环境中，人类不仅可以满足自己的需求，而且可以将自己视为真正的个体。对于雅斯贝尔斯而言，在一个仅由有用对象组成的世界中，人们将无法做到这一点。在这种情况下，人们的世界将Ta们俘虏：
“所有人都过着相似的生活，以相同的、可替代的事物和材料来满足需求；所有人都完全依赖于存在主义推动下的生活方式彼此纠缠，但并不一定需要与他人接触。这种无休止的生产机器一般的可计算过程，留给人类的唯一自由就是观看的自由 ”（Jaspers 1969-71, 1:112-13）
“All live alike, in the same worldless satisfaction of needs by identically replaceable things and materials; all are completely dependent upon each other for their concrete means of existence, yet without necessarily being in personal touch. The only freedom left to men by the calculable course of this endless productive machinery would be the freedom to watch” (Jaspers 1969–71, 1:112–13)
The following quote illustrates how Jaspers believed we have lost our connection with the world through non-unique artificial products:
"In everyday life, the result of technological progress is that the supply of necessities of life is reliable but somehow not so gratifying, as they come to us as a matter of course rather than with the positive satisfaction that arises from personal effort. Due to the immediate availability of more material in exchange for money, they lack the fragrance generated by personal effort. Daily necessities are supplied abundantly, used up, and discarded as rubbish; they are easily interchangeable, one sample being just as good as another. In mass-produced finished goods, there is no striving for unique and precious qualities that would be cherished carefully, producing products that go beyond fashion with personalized individuality."
Eliminating the subjective connection between humans and their world has a profound impact on the way humans give form to their existence. Jaspers believed that humans need such an attachment to the world in order to realize their individuality. Only then can the world become their world—an environment that allows not only anonymous functioning but also individual participation, where humans can see themselves as genuine individuals. Without this, in a world composed only of useful objects, people would be unable to achieve this. In such a case, the world would capture them:
"Everyone lives a similar life, satisfying needs with the same interchangeable things and materials; everyone is completely entangled in an existentially driven way of life without necessarily needing contact with others. The only freedom left to humans in this endless production machinery-like calculable process is the freedom to observe" (Jaspers 1969-71, 1:112-13).
“All live alike, in the same worldless satisfaction of needs by identically replaceable things and materials; all are completely dependent upon each other for their concrete means of existence, yet without necessarily being in personal touch. The only freedom left to men by the calculable course of this endless productive machinery would be the freedom to watch” (Jaspers 1969–71, 1:112–13)
写到这里时，我忽然想起了威廉莫里斯（William Morris）和工艺美术运动！似乎重新理解了一遍，这一运动在当时的社会背景下之于人们生活的意义。（如果你也对这个人和历史事件有印象，我希望你现在马上重新回忆一下当时自己看过的对这一运动的描述内容）尽管多年以前它就在我们的美术课本，考研教材和百X词条中中被一而再，再而三的反复提起，再提起。但是，在文献查阅的过程中，我发现这次运动的主旨其实是经济和社会的改革，而并非单单是从艺术美学或设计角度所理解的对艺术风格本身发起的“复兴”运动。在1851 年万国博览会中看到的物品加剧了当时变革者们对工业制品和生活关系的巨大反思，Ta们都反对过度装饰和不切实际或制作不良的物品。欧文·琼斯（Owen Jones）抱怨说“建筑师、室内装潢师、纸染工、织布工、印花布印刷工和陶工” 产生了 “没有美感的新奇，或是缺少智慧的美感”。工艺美术运动既是社会改革运动，也是设计改革运动，然而其主要从业者并没有将两者分开。工艺美术的哲学理论在很大程度上源自约翰拉斯金（John Ruskin）的社会批评，它将一个国家的 道德和社会健康 与其 建筑质量和工作性质 联系起来。拉斯金认为工业革命中创造的那种机械化生产和分工是“奴役劳动”（你看像不像在吐槽今天的打工人打工魂？），他认为一个健康和道德的社会需要独立的工人来设计他们制造的东西（而不是不加思考的实现完成而已）。他认为当时工厂制造的作品是“不诚实的”，将工人的社会尊严与劳动方式融合在一起来思考，这其实是一场关于工业化社会，技术制品与人类尊严的问题（我猜)。威廉·莫里斯赞同拉斯金对工业社会的批评，并时不时地抨击现代工厂、机械的使用、劳动分工、资本主义和传统工艺方法的丧失。但他对机械（技术）并不是一味吐槽的态度。他曾说，机械生产“完全是一种罪恶”，但在一些情况下，他又愿意委托能够在机器的帮助下达到他标准的制造商的工作。莫里斯说，在一个既不制造奢侈品也不制造廉价垃圾的“真正社会”中，机器可以改进并用于减少劳动时间。Fiona MacCarthy 说，“不像后来的狂热分子, 威廉莫里斯对使用机器本身没有实际反对意见，只要机器生产出他需要的质量。” 许多工艺美术运动设计师都是社会主义者，包括莫里斯、TJ Cobden Sanderson、Walter Crane、CRAshbee、Philip Webb、Charles Faulkner和AH Mackmurdo。在 1880 年代初期，莫里斯将更多的时间花在促进社会主义上，而不是设计和制造上。那些不是社会主义者的追随者，例如Alfred Hoare Powell，提倡雇主和雇员之间更加人性化和个人化的关系。在英国，这场运动与服饰改革、乡村主义、花园城市运动和民歌复兴有关。在某种程度上，所有这些运动与实践尝试都与“Simple Life”的社会理想联系在一起。这里的花园城市运动，就是我们在上一篇文章中提到的工人阶层的大众花园的起源，花园城市运动是一种城市规划中的理论方法，自给自足的城市社区被“绿地包围”，包含住宅，工业和农业的领域比例划分。1898年发表《明天：真正改革的和平之路》，该书于 1902 年重新发行为《明天的花园城市》。如果莫里斯们看到21世纪PHOTOGENIC 的Ins风美图，会不会觉得像极了1851年万国博览会上见到的浮光幻影的“工业化产品”？
关于卡尔的描述补充：1909 年，雅斯贝尔斯成为海德堡大学精神病诊所的志愿者研究助理，他一直担任该职位直到 1915 年。该诊所由著名的神经病理学家 Franz Nissl 领导，他在他的领导下组建了一支优秀的助理团队。由于他希望以自己的方式学习精神病学，而不受老师的任何特定思维模式的约束，因此雅斯贝尔斯选择在自己的时间、自己的节奏和他特别感兴趣的患者身上工作。这只是因为他同意无薪工作。纳粹上台后，雅思贝尔斯因妻子的犹太身份而受到当局的迫害，这位德国著名的哲学教授随即失去了工作，他的作品被禁止出版，他的妻子不想连累丈夫的学术前途而要求丈夫放弃自己，雅思贝尔斯回答说：“我如果这样做的话，我的全部哲学没有任何意义。”朋友们试图帮助他移民到另一个国家，1942 年，他终于获准前往瑞士，但纳粹强加了一项条件，要求他的妻子留在德国。他拒绝接受这个条件，并选择留下与妻子在战火中呆在一起。（明明体弱多病 不能跳舞，却又铁骨铮铮 浪漫至死 ❤️ ）
When writing this, I suddenly thought of William Morris and the Arts and Crafts Movement! It seems like I'm reinterpreting the significance of this movement in people's lives within the social context of that time. (If you also have any impressions or recollections of this person and the historical event, I hope you can recall the descriptions you encountered.)
Although it has been repeatedly mentioned in our art textbooks, exam materials, and online encyclopedias for many years, during the process of literature review, I discovered that the essence of this movement was actually about economic and social reform, rather than just a "revival" movement in terms of artistic aesthetics or design. The items seen at the 1851 Great Exhibition intensified the reformers' reflection on industrial products and the relationship with life. They opposed excessive ornamentation and impractical or poorly made objects. Owen Jones complained about the emergence of "novelty without beauty or beauty without intelligence" from "architects, decorators, paper stainers, weavers, calico printers, and potters." The Arts and Crafts Movement was both a social reform movement and a design reform movement, and its practitioners did not separate the two. The philosophical theory of the Arts and Crafts Movement largely originated from John Ruskin's social criticism, which linked the moral and social health of a nation to the quality of its architecture and the nature of its work. Ruskin believed that the mechanized production and division of labor created in the Industrial Revolution were "enslaving labor" (does it sound like a criticism of today's working class and their work ethic?), and he argued that a healthy and moral society required independent workers to design what they produced (rather than thoughtless implementation). He considered the products manufactured in factories at the time to be "dishonest" and merged the social dignity of workers with their mode of labor, posing a question about industrialized society, technological products, and human dignity (I guess). William Morris agreed with Ruskin's criticism of industrial society and frequently criticized modern factories, the use of machinery, the division of labor, capitalism, and the loss of traditional craft methods. However, he did not have a purely negative attitude towards machinery (technology). He once said that machine production was "altogether evil," but in some cases, he was willing to entrust manufacturers who could achieve his standards with their work using machines. Morris said that in a "true society" that neither produced luxury goods nor produced cheap junk, machines could be improved and used to reduce labor time. Fiona MacCarthy said, "Unlike later fanatics, William Morris had no practical objections to the use of machines themselves; he wanted machines to produce what he needed." Many designers of the Arts and Crafts Movement were socialists, including Morris, TJ Cobden Sanderson, Walter Crane, CR Ashbee, Philip Webb, Charles Faulkner, and AH Mackmurdo. In the early 1880s, Morris devoted more time to promoting socialism rather than design and manufacturing. Those followers who were not socialists, such as Alfred Hoare Powell, advocated for more humane and personalized relationships between employers and employees. In Britain, this movement was associated with dress reform, ruralism, the Garden City Movement, and the revival of folk songs. To some extent, all these movements and practical experiments were connected to the social ideal of the "Simple Life." The Garden City Movement mentioned here is the origin of the working-class public gardens we mentioned in the previous article. The Garden City Movement is a theoretical approach in urban planning where self-sufficient urban communities are surrounded by "green belts," with a proportional division of residential, industrial, and agricultural areas. In 1898, the book "To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform" was published, and it was reissued in 1902 as "Garden Cities of To-Morrow." If Morris and his associates saw the PHOTGENIC Ins-style photos of the 21st century, would they feel that they resemble the "industrial products" of floating lights and illusions seen at the 1851 Great Exhibition?
Additional information about Karl: In 1909, Jaspers became a volunteer research assistant at the Psychiatric Clinic of Heidelberg University, a position he held until 1915. The clinic was led by the renowned neuropathologist Franz Nissl, and under his leadership, an excellent team of assistants was formed. As Jaspers wanted to study psychiatry in his own way, free from the constraints of any specific modes of thinking imposed by teachers, he chose to work in his own time, at his own pace, and with patients he found particularly interesting. This was only possible because he agreed to work without payment. After the Nazis came to power, Jaspers, due to his wife's Jewish heritage, faced persecution by the authorities. This distinguished German philosophy professor subsequently lost his job, his works were banned from publication, and his wife, unwilling to jeopardize her husband's academic future, asked him to abandon her. Jaspers replied, "If I were to do that, all my philosophy would be meaningless." Friends attempted to help him immigrate to another country, and in 1942, he was finally granted permission to go to Switzerland, but the Nazis imposed a condition that required his wife to stay in Germany. He refused to accept this condition and chose to stay with his wife in the midst of the war (romantic to the end, despite his frail health and inability to dance).
Zygmunt Bauman: LOVE. FEAR. And the NETWORK❄️
市民丙 "黎明写手" 齐格蒙 Third Citizen "Dawn Writer Zygmunt"
齐格蒙 . 鲍曼在这里出现是因为朋友看了上一篇文章后推给我的一本鲍曼的书《工作、消费、新穷人》，就这样在这篇故事中出现一个既意外又自然的节点。齐大爷于 1925 年出生在波兰波兹南的一个贫穷的犹太家庭，他设法赶上了前往苏俄的末班车，从而使自己免于可怕的命运。接下来的日子里他成为一名马克思主义者并参加了红军，回到波兰后，在安全部队担任政治官员，与反对政权的反对者作斗争，然后在军队的特勤局工作，直到 1953 年。对苏联共产主义的幻想破灭，他离开了波兰共产党。在一场恶毒的反犹运动之后，于 1968 年失去了华沙大学的职位，移居以色列，在特拉维夫大学任教两年，最终移居英国。鲍曼创造了“ 流动的现代性 Liquid Modernity ”这个词，它指的是我们 (这里指欧洲) 社会的现状以及它以前所未有的速度对生活的各个方面——爱、工作、社会、政治和权力——进行变革。他涵盖了广泛的主题，从亲密关系到全球化，从真人秀到大屠杀，从消费主义到社区，远远超出了他的核心专业领域，延伸到哲学和心理学领域。鲍曼的这部分摘录，主要来自于 PETER HAFFNER对鲍曼的一篇题为“LOVE.FEAR.And the NETWORK”的访谈，这篇采访最初在Das Magazin 上 以德语发表， 在032c第 29 期（2015年）以英语发表。我在文末放了这段采访的链接。
在鲍曼看来，现代性危机来源于对科技、市场及理性三者的笃信和混合而引发的道德危机。20世纪80年代晚期到90年代早期，鲍曼出版了一系列探讨现代性、科层制、理性以及社会排斥的书籍。他同意弗洛伊德的观点，把欧洲现代性看作是一种权衡，认为欧洲社会为了享受不断增长着的 个人安全感 而同意放弃某种程度的自由 ，即放弃安全以换取更多的自由、购买、消费和享受生活的自由。鲍曼在 1990 年代的书中写道，这是从“现代性”到“后现代性”的转变。我们的“流动的现代”世界无法长期保持原状。一切似乎都在改变——我们追随的时尚、引起我们注意的事件、我们梦想的事物和我们害怕的事物。
这里插播一条我在荷兰遛 🐶 时的观察发现，按我居住地周边的日常观察，这边的10只🐶 中会有1到2只一看就是接受过严格的社交训练和外出随行训练的，走在外面的状态是全程紧贴主人身侧一路小跑，从不溜号自己乱跑，时不时抬头关注主人的指令，有一种在遛一只Boston Dynamics BigDog的既视感；跟Loki走在路上的左顾右盼，东闻西转，时不时嬉皮笑脸，偶尔隔街生气😤 完全不同。现在看到鲍曼对欧洲社会生活的这般描述，我大概弄清了一点为什么会这样不同。也似乎更明了了一些，偶尔在荷兰生活中出现的，一种既自由又虚无的感觉。鲍曼认为这一过程包含了对天性的掌控、等级森严的科层制、各种规章制度、与控制，所有这些要素都尝试着逐渐消除个人的无安全感，使人类生活混乱的一面看起来富有秩序与熟悉感。
Zygmunt Bauman's appearance here is due to a book of his, "Work, Consumerism, and the New Poor," recommended to me by a friend after reading the previous article. It serves as an unexpected yet natural connection point in this story. Zygmunt was born in 1925 into a poor Jewish family in Poznań, Poland. He managed to catch the last train to the Soviet Union, thus saving himself from a terrible fate. In the following years, he became a Marxist and joined the Red Army. After returning to Poland, he served as a political officer in the security forces, fighting against opponents of the regime, and later worked in the intelligence department of the military until 1953. When his illusions of Soviet communism shattered, he left the Polish Communist Party. After a vicious anti-Semitic campaign, he lost his position at Warsaw University in 1968, immigrated to Israel, taught at Tel Aviv University for two years, and eventually settled in the United Kingdom. Bauman coined the term "Liquid Modernity," which refers to the current state of our (specifically European) society and its unprecedented pace of change in various aspects of life - love, work, society, politics, and power. He covers a wide range of topics, from intimate relationships to globalization, from reality TV to the Holocaust, and from consumerism to community, extending beyond his core areas of expertise into the fields of philosophy and psychology. This excerpt from Bauman mainly comes from an interview titled "LOVE.FEAR.And the NETWORK" conducted by Peter Haffner. The interview was originally published in German in Das Magazin and later in English in 032c Issue 29 (2015). I have provided a link to the interview at the end of the text.
According to Bauman, the crisis of modernity stems from a moral crisis triggered by the faith and amalgamation of technology, the market, and reason. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Bauman published a series of books exploring modernity, bureaucracy, rationality, and social exclusion. He agreed with Freud's viewpoint, considering European modernity as a trade-off, believing that European society agreed to sacrifice a certain degree of freedom in order to enjoy ever-growing personal security. This meant sacrificing security in exchange for more freedom, consumption, and the freedom to enjoy life. In his books from the 1990s, Bauman wrote about this transition from "modernity" to "postmodernity." Our "liquid modern" world cannot maintain its original state in the long run. Everything seems to be changing - the fashions we follow, the events that catch our attention, the things we dream of, and the things we fear.
Here, I'd like to share an observation I made while walking my dog in the Netherlands. Based on my daily observations around my place of residence, out of every 10 dogs, there are 1 or 2 that clearly have undergone strict social and outdoor training. They walk closely beside their owners throughout the entire journey, never wandering off on their own, occasionally raising their heads to pay attention to their owners' commands. They give off a feeling akin to walking a Boston Dynamics BigDog. On the other hand, walking with Loki, he looks around, sniffs here and there, occasionally plays around, and occasionally gets angry across the street. It's completely different. Now, seeing Bauman's description of European social life, I've gained some understanding of why there is such a difference. It also seems to shed light on the occasional sense of freedom and emptiness that arises in my life in the Netherlands. Bauman believes that this process includes control over human nature, hierarchical bureaucracy, various regulations, and control. All these elements attempt to gradually eliminate individuals' sense of insecurity, making the chaotic aspects of human life appear orderly and familiar.
CXC Illustration Zygmunt Bauman
Liquid x Love ❤️
你说我们忘记了如何去爱。是什么让你得出这个结论？
在互联网上寻找合作伙伴的趋势与网上购物的趋势相辅相成。如果你想要一件新夹克，虚拟商店的网站会向你展示一个目录。如果你想要一个合作伙伴，约会网站也会为你提供一个目录。客户和商品之间的关系模式定义了个人之间的关系模式。危险在于，这种关系模式正在变得类似于我们与世间万物的关系方式。我们永远不会承诺我们对椅子的忠诚。为什么我要发誓要一直坐在这把椅子上直到我垂死的那一天？如果我不再喜欢它，我只会买一把新的。这不是一个有意识的过程，而是我们学习看待世界和其他人本能的方式。我们建立关系是因为Ta们承诺满意。当我们觉得换一个伴侣会更令人满意时，我们就会打破旧关系，开始新的关系。开始一段关系需要两个人的同意。结束它只需要一个。结果，双方都生活在不断的恐惧中，害怕被对方抛弃，害怕像过时的夹克一样被扔到一边。在动荡的时代，我们需要不会让我们失望的朋友和合作伙伴，他们在我们需要时就在我们身边。对稳定的渴望在生活中很重要。Facebook 的 160 亿美元估值是基于这种需要不孤单。另一方面，我们害怕与某人交往并被束缚的承诺。我们害怕错过。我们渴望一个安全的避风港，但我们仍然希望解放双手。
您与一位女士结婚了 60 年，Janina Lewinson，她于 2009 年去世。什么才是真正的爱情？也许是从你在不仅对您自己重要的事情上有所作为，并为这一事实而感到高兴时开始。你感觉被需要，甚至不可替代，是一种令人振奋的感觉。当我们坚持做完全出于自身利益而行事的利己主义者时，这很难实现，也无法实现。
Liquid x Love ❤️
You said we have forgotten how to love. What led you to this conclusion?
The trend of seeking work partners online parallels the trend of online shopping. If you want a new jacket, the website of a virtual store will show you a catalog. If you want a partner, dating websites will also provide you with a catalog. The relationship patterns between customers and products define the relationship patterns between individuals. The danger lies in the fact that these relationship patterns are becoming similar to how we relate to everything else in the world. We never commit ourselves to loyalty to a chair. Why should I swear to sit in this chair until my dying day? If I no longer like it, I will just buy a new one. This is not a conscious process but an instinctive way we learn to view the world and others. We establish relationships because they promise satisfaction. When we feel that a new partner will be more satisfying, we break off the old relationship and start a new one. Starting a relationship requires the consent of two people, but ending it only requires one. As a result, both parties live in constant fear, afraid of being abandoned by the other, afraid of being discarded like an outdated jacket. In turbulent times, we need friends and partners who won't disappoint us, and who will be there for us when we need them. The desire for stability is important in life. Facebook's $16 billion valuation is based on this need to avoid loneliness. On the other hand, we fear the commitment of being involved with someone and being bound by it. We fear missing out. We long for a safe harbor but still want our hands free.
"You were married to a lady, Janina Lewinson, for 60 years until her passing in 2009. What is true love?" Perhaps it begins when you take action on things that are important not just to yourself but to the other person as well, and you find joy in that fact. Feeling needed, even irreplaceable, is an exhilarating feeling. It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve when we insist on being purely self-interested actors.
CXC Illustration Zygmunt Bauman
Utopia X Fear 👻
首先，科技权威。鲍曼指出，伦理道德探索世界“是否能做”或“是否应做”的事 ，而科学技术“之所以会做这件事，仅仅因为‘能够做到’”。他分析说，人们操纵着科技，却不太关心“为什么做”和“结果是什么”。因为技术秘诀的存在就是结果的价值所在。鲍曼指出，人类设计出一套系统地统治、控制和处置问题的方法不仅指向了自然，同时也指向了自身：现代人类不仅是技术的主宰，也成为了“技术的对象”，不断 地“被分割和重新组装”。“道德自我是在技术牺牲品当中最明显、最突出的一个…… 没有为道德主体留下空间。” 其次，市场诱感。鲍曼指出，市场以个人利益的获得为价值取向，“金钱的价值”成 为区分正确行为与错误行为的最好标准。而道德自我、道德责任便失去了意义。在市场 诱惑下，人类欲望就会被揭示出来，其所导致的则是，“除了欲壑难填之外，没有任何标准；除了‘高明巧妙地处理事情’之外，并没有规则”。
你用猎场管理员、园丁和猎人的比喻来描述乌托邦思维的历史发展。前现代的世界姿态是看守人的姿态，而现代的姿态是园丁的姿态。现在，在后现代，猎人开始占据主导地位。这个乌托邦与以往对现代性的想象有何不同？
它不再像过去那样涉及“保护和维护，或创造美丽的花园”。今天，人们关心的只是把自己的“猎袋”装得满满当当，而不用关心剩余的猎物供应。社会历史学家在“个性化”的标题下讨论这种转变，而政治家则将其称为“放松管制”。与早期的乌托邦不同，猎人的乌托邦并不赋予生活任何意义，无论是真实的还是虚假的。它只是用来从人们的头脑中消除关于生命意义的问题。
这个乌托邦的基础是什么？
我们在这里处理两个相互补充的乌托邦：一个是自由市场的奇妙治愈能力，另一个是技术修复的无限能力。两者都是不合时宜的，都设想了一个有权利但没有义务的世界，最重要的是，没有统治者。他们反对任何计划，反对延迟满足，反对为了未来利益而做出的牺牲。在这里召唤出的世界的自发性使所有对未来的担忧变得毫无意义——除了摆脱对未来的所有担忧的担忧。
恐惧，你在你的《液态监视》一书中写道，社会保护我们免受恐惧的尝试最终只会产生更多恐惧。对过去的恐惧不是更糟——对上帝、魔鬼、地狱、鬼魂和自然的恐惧吗？
我不认为人们今天的恐惧比过去更大。但它们是不同的，更随意，更分散，更模糊。你在一家公司工作了 30 年，你受到高度尊重，突然一家更大的公司突然出现，吞并了这家公司。它被剥光并卖掉，你会发现自己突然在街上但是不知道去哪儿。到了 50 岁，找到新工作的前景有限，不知道可不可以认为上述情境可能演变成无需等到工作30年，现实也许会愈演愈烈的演变为无时无刻原地失业？（而这个现象并不是某些地区所独有的，而是全球企业的一个普遍性趋势 - 标普500指数里的公司在上世纪60年代，平均寿命为32年，但现在只有24年，未来可能更短，有些分析师认为，可能只有12年。也就是说，十年以后，标普500指数中有一半公司将被替换。德勤亚太区首席战略和创新官蒂里·德尔马塞尔（Thierry Delmarcelle）2019年在德勤创新峰会上分享了这组数据”）。许多人害怕这样的打击和逆境，不知道它们可能从哪里来，也无法采取任何预防措施来防止它们。
它曾经是不同的？
人们曾经害怕具体的东西。庄稼歉收，人们抬头望天：“是终于下雨了，还是一直干枯，万物枯萎？” 孩子们去上学，但不得不穿过一个众所周知的狼在那里漫游的小森林，所以他们不得不被护送穿过树林。即使在害怕核战争的时候，人们也相信他们可以通过建造掩体来保护自己。当然，那是愚蠢的，但他们仍然认为他们可以做些什么。人们没有绝望。他们对自己说：“我很好。我正在为我的家人建造一个防空洞。”
至少在世界上富裕的地区，我们今天比我们之前的任何社会都活得更久、更安全。风险已经大大降低。
我想必须将风险的概念与危险的概念进行比较，以明确区别。危险是具体的。我们知道我们害怕什么，我们可以采取预防措施。风险并非如此。许多理论家已经注意到一个悖论，即我们今天的生活比我们之前的任何一代都安全得多，但与此同时，我们生活在不安全的幻影中。生活水平提高了，我们不再需要考虑我们所在地区的生计问题。与此同时，最近的金融危机让人们更加害怕陷入贫困。整个中产阶级都受制于市场的变幻莫测，害怕生活水平不断下降，永远无法恢复。更不用说失去工作的工人了。当然，今天的生活水平远高于 19 世纪，但由于某种原因，它不再产生幸福感。即使在相当好的日子之后，许多人还是上床睡觉并时常噩梦。白天被压制的魔鬼出来了，因为人们太专注于他们的工作，然后在寂静的夜里，恐惧浮出水面。过去，人们饱受禁锢之苦。对负债的恐惧，对违反规则后被指控不合规的恐惧——所有这些都导致了神经症。今天，我们遭受着太多的可能性和对不足的恐惧，这导致了抑郁。
Firstly, the authority of technology. Bauman points out that ethical exploration asks whether the world "can do" or "should do" something, while science and technology only focus on "can do." He analyzes that people manipulate technology but don't care about the "why" and the consequences. The value lies in the existence of technological secrets. Bauman states that the human design of a systematic method for governing, controlling, and dealing with problems not only applies to nature but also to themselves. Modern humans are not only masters of technology but also become "objects of technology," constantly being "segmented and reassembled." The moral self is most apparent and prominent among the sacrifices of technology... leaving no space for the moral subject.
Secondly, the lure of the market. Bauman points out that the market values personal gain, and "the value of money" becomes the best criterion for distinguishing between right and wrong behavior. The moral self and moral responsibility lose their meaning. Under the temptation of the market, human desires are revealed, and the result is that "there are no standards except insatiable desires; there are no rules except 'clever handling of things.'"
You used the metaphors of the gamekeeper, the gardener, and the hunter to describe the historical development of utopian thinking. The pre-modern posture was that of the gamekeeper, while the modern posture was that of the gardener. Now, in the postmodern era, the hunter takes the lead. How is this utopia different from previous imaginings of modernity? It no longer involves "preservation and cultivation or creating beautiful gardens." Today, people are only concerned with filling their "hunting bags" without worrying about the remaining supply of prey. Social historians discuss this shift under the heading of "individualization," while politicians call it "deregulation." Unlike early utopias, the hunter's utopia does not give life any meaning, whether real or false. It is only meant to eradicate questions about the meaning of life from people's minds.
What is the foundation of this utopia?
We are dealing with two complementary utopias here: the miraculous curative power of the free market and the infinite power of technological fixes. Both are untimely and envision a world with rights but no obligations, and most importantly, without rulers. They are against any plans, against delayed gratification, and against sacrifices made for future benefits. The spontaneity conjured by this world makes all concerns for the future meaningless—except for the concern of getting rid of all concerns about the future. Fear, as you wrote in your book "Liquid Surveillance," societal attempts to protect us from fear ultimately generate more fear. Isn't fear of the past worse—the fear of God, the devil, hell, ghosts, and nature?
I don't believe that people's fears today are greater than in the past. But they are different, more arbitrary, more scattered, and more blurred. You have worked in a company for 30 years, highly respected, and suddenly a larger company appears and takes over that company. It is stripped and sold, and you find yourself suddenly on the street not knowing where to go. At the age of 50, prospects for finding new employment are limited, and you can't help but think that the above scenario could evolve into constant unemployment without having to wait 30 years, and the reality may intensify even more. (This phenomenon is not unique to certain areas but a global trend within corporations—the average lifespan of companies in the S&P 500 index was 32 years in the 1960s but now is only 24 years, and some analysts believe it could be as short as 12 years in the future. This means that in ten years, half of the companies in the S&P 500 index will be replaced. Thierry Delmarcelle, Deloitte's Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer for Asia Pacific shared this data at the 2019 Deloitte Innovation Summit.) Many people fear such setbacks and adversity, not knowing where they might come from and unable to take any preventative measures to prevent them.
Wasn't it different before?
People used to fear concrete things. When there was a poor harvest, people looked up to the sky and wondered, "Did it finally rain or did it continue to be dry, with everything withering away?" Children went to school but had to pass through a little forest where a known wolf roamed, so they had to be escorted through the woods. Even in the fear of nuclear war, people believed they could protect themselves by building shelters. Of course, that was foolish, but they still believed they could do something. People were not desperate. They said to themselves, "I'm fine. I'm building an air-raid shelter for my family." At least in affluent regions of the world, we live longer and safer than any previous society. The risks have been significantly reduced.
I believe it is necessary to compare the concept of risk with the concept of danger to make a clear distinction. The danger is concrete. We know what we fear, and we can take preventive measures. Risk is not as straightforward. Many theorists have noticed a paradox: our lives today are much safer than any previous generation, yet at the same time, we live in the shadow of insecurity. Living standards have improved, and we no longer need to worry about our livelihoods in our regions. However, recent financial crises have made people more afraid of falling into poverty. The entire middle class is subject to the unpredictable fluctuations of the market, fearing a constant decline in living standards with no hope of recovery. Not to mention the workers who lose their jobs. Certainly, today's living standards are far higher than in the 19th century, but for some reason, they no longer generate a sense of happiness. Even after relatively good days, many people go to bed and have frequent nightmares. The suppressed demons emerge because people are too focused on their work, and in the quiet of the night, fear surfaces. In the past, people suffered from the agony of constraints. The fear of debt, the fear of being accused of irregularities after violating rules—all of these led to neuroses. Today, we are burdened with too many possibilities and the fear of inadequacy, which leads to depression.
CXC Illustration Zygmunt Bauman TECHNOLOGY X NETWORK 🕸 互联网有很多关于它的好东西。阿拉伯之春等民主运动成功地利用了社交网络。有什么缺点？ 当谈到摧毁某些东西时——推翻政府——它可能是有用的。这种运动的弱点在于，他们对“后天只”有模糊的计划。愤怒的公民作为拆迁力量几乎无所不能，Ta们还没有表明Ta们同样有能力建立新的东西。 技术进步总是导致社会变革。然而，今天，你说它涉及的远不止这些。为什么？ 因为我们不再使用技术来为我们的目的寻找合适的手段，而是让我们的目的由可用的技术手段来决定。我们不开发技术来做我们想做的事情。我们做技术使之成为可能的事情。从历史上看，技术的发展往往是小步进行的。到处都有创新，但不是在全球范围内，没有革命性的影响，也没有改变整个社会及其生活方式。创新被吸收和适应，并自然的成为日常生活的一部分。今天不一样了。技术带来的变化是巨大的，系统性的，并且表现出一定的极权主义倾向。俄罗斯寡头之一德米特里·伊茨科夫发起了他的“2045 计划”，这是一项旨在使人脑变得多余的研究项目。他正在资助开发一种旨在像人类一样思考的电子机器。是否真实，我也说不准。但事实上有人会有这样的想法是一件新鲜事。我们的思想第一次受到机器的威胁。 TECHNOLOGY X NETWORK 🕸
The internet has many positive aspects. Democratic movements like the Arab Spring have successfully utilized social networks. What are the drawbacks? When it comes to tearing down something—overthrowing a government—it can be useful. The weakness of these movements lies in their vague plans for "what comes next." Angry citizens, as a dismantling force, can be nearly unstoppable, but they haven't shown the same capacity to build something new. Technological progress always leads to social change. However, today, you argue that it involves much more than that. Why? Because we no longer use technology to find suitable means for our purposes but rather let our purposes be determined by the available technological means. We don't develop technology to do what we want to do. We make technology to make things possible. Historically, technological advancements have often occurred in small steps. Innovations were present everywhere, but not on a global scale, without revolutionary impact or changing the entire society and its way of life. Innovations were absorbed, adapted, and naturally became part of everyday life. Today is different. The changes brought about by technology are enormous, and systemic, and display certain authoritarian tendencies. One of the Russian oligarchs, Dmitry Itskov, initiated his "2045 Initiative," a research project aimed at making the human brain redundant. He is funding the development of electronic machines intended to think like humans. Whether it's true or not, I can't say. But the fact that someone would have such an idea is something new. For the first time, our thoughts are being threatened by machines.
CXC Illustration Zygmunt Bauman 古法不合今病 鲍曼始终警惕为未来提供任何替代蓝图，拒绝为我们共同的困境提供任何具体的解决方案。他相信一个真正好的社会是一个永远不会满足于它已经足够好的社会。1806年的一位袜商这样描述：我发现人类对于任何规律性的时间和习惯有着天然的厌恶。稳定、耐久而持续、逻辑清晰且结构严谨的工作生涯不再是百病皆医的药方了。长久的、良好保障和确定的工作，现在成了稀有品。目前的口号是“灵活性”这个逐渐流行的概念，代表了一场没什么规则可循的雇佣和解雇游戏，但只要游戏继续进行下去，就有单方面改变规则的权利。（Ricardo Petrella）指出，当前的全球趋势指向，“通过大幅缩短产品和服务的生命周期”，经济开始朝向朝生暮死、反复无常以及不稳定化 的生产格局发展。这就是为什么我称这个时期为interregnum（过渡期），按照意大利哲学家安东尼奥·葛兰西所使用的现代意义。他将过渡期定义为当前的做事方式不再正常工作，但尚未发明新的替代方案的时期。我们今天就生活在这样一个时期。突然想起小说《生吞》中的一段描写，记录的是我印象中亲历过的一段“过渡期” （万维网技术诞生10年之后，即将到来的千禧年） “世纪之交那几年不知道怎么了，全国上下都流行这种大型讲座，一个比一个邪乎，老的学气功，小的学速记，好像不掌握一招奇门遁甲，都没法顺利过日子了。” 关于齐大爷的番外小故事是这样的，齐大爷一生高产，写了大约60本书，学校看门大爷经常看到他凌晨4点30就大踏步的奔向自己的办公室去写作。 关于鲍曼所提出的建议 - “对机制外的世界保持好奇，尝试不可能的事”，推荐一部爱尔兰的动画电影《凯尔经的秘密》。看的时候我在想，这故事真真是像极了今天很多圈子里的现状，大家忙于在自己占据的山头巩固城池，躲在高阁中各种算计装模作样的努力，却看不见城堡外世界的变化与生活本身单纯的样子。
Ancient Method Doesn't Fit Today's Disease
Bauman has always been wary of providing any blueprint for the future and refuses to offer any specific solutions to our common predicament. He believes that a truly good society is one that never settles for being merely good enough. In 1806, a hosiery merchant described it this way: "I find that mankind has a natural aversion to anything regular in time and habit. A long-lasting, well-secured, and certain job is no longer the cure for all ills. The current slogan is 'flexibility,' a gradually popularizing concept that represents a game of hiring and firing with no fixed rules, but as long as the game continues, there is the right to unilaterally change the rules." Ricardo Petrella points out that the current global trend is towards "greatly reducing the life cycle of products and services," leading the economy towards a pattern of production that is short-lived, unpredictable, and unstable. That's why I call this period the interregnum, using the modern sense used by the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci. He defines the interregnum as the period when the normal way of doing things no longer works but new alternative solutions have not yet been invented. We are living in such a period today. It suddenly reminded me of a passage in the novel "Raw" that described a "transition period" (just before the arrival of the new millennium, ten years after the birth of the World Wide Web): "During the years around the turn of the century, there was something strange happening. All over the country, these large-scale lectures became popular, one more bizarre than the other. The old learned qigong and the young learned shorthand. It seemed like if you didn't master some extraordinary skills, you couldn't get through life smoothly." He was extremely productive throughout his life, writing about 60 books. The school's gatekeeper often saw him briskly heading to his office to write as early as 4:30 in the morning. Regarding Bauman's suggestion to "stay curious about the world beyond mechanisms and try the impossible," I recommend an Irish animated film called "The Secret of Kells." While watching it, I couldn't help but think that the story resonates with the current situation in many circles today. Everyone is busy consolidating their own territories, hiding in high towers, and making all sorts of calculations and pretentious efforts, but they fail to see the changes in the world outside the castle and the simple essence of life itself.
《凯尔经的秘密》
市民丁 “问道者” 阿拉斯代尔Fourth Citizen "Asker Alasdair"
CXC Illustration Alasdair Maclntyre 阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔（Alasdair MacIntyre，1929年1月12日－）出生于苏格兰格拉斯哥，哲学家，在道德哲学、政治哲学、哲学史和神学等领域都作出了杰出的贡献。他目前是圣母大学研究哲学的奥布赖恩高级教授。知道麦金太尔是因为他著名的“小孩下棋”的比喻，这个比喻是这样的 --- 成年人在教小孩下国际象棋的过程中，一开始可能会借助外部激励（糖果）吸引小孩来玩棋，但如果孩子在接下来的过程中，逐渐超越外部激励开始获得内在的兴趣和满足感，那则可以视为孩子开始通过下棋获取内在所得。不去作弊的把棋玩好则会越来越吸引人，而仅仅为了获得收益（糖果）或赢得比赛则会逐渐变得没那么重要。麦金太尔认为有三个核心美德：真实性，正义和勇气。如果单纯是零食（利益）给这个孩子提供了下棋的充分理由，Ta就没有任何理由不去采取欺骗性的手段 （走捷径/危害其他人的利益），如果Ta的目标只是为了获胜，去得到糖果零食这种奖赏 Ta只需要赢/打败/打击别人就可以，那Ta除了欺骗之外，也未必会去真正开发自己的潜能，充分的磨炼自己“下棋”的技艺。麦金太尔认为，政治应该是一种内部利益的实践，但现在它只能导致外部利益。有人赢，有人输；没有对整个社区有益的成就产生；欺骗和剥削频繁发生，这损害了整个社群。（MacIntyre在 After Virtue 之后改变了他的术语。他现在将内部商品称为“卓越的商品”，而现在将外部商品称为“效果的商品”。参见MacIntyre Reader 55）。 根据麦金太尔的说法，参与哲学和政治辩论的人声称使用的是客观的、基于理性的、普遍适用的前提。但Ta们真正在做的，不管Ta们承不承认，都是在用道德的语言去争取自己的喜好。Ta们不是试图通过合理的论证来说服别人，因为关于道德的理性论证需要就人类的利益达成共识，就像科学中的理性论证依赖于对科学定义和科学实践的共同共识一样。这种关于人类利益的共识在现代世界中并不存在（事实上，现代世界在很多方面都是由它的缺失来定义的），因此任何关于道德或道德问题的理性争论的尝试都注定要失败，因为自由主义主张每个人都有以自己的方式追求幸福的权利，而且因为个人追求的幸福版本不可避免地相互矛盾（我希望在学校祈祷，你不希望；我希望禁止堕胎，你支持；我希望对富人征税以养活穷人，但你拒绝了）。争论的其他各方完全意识到，Ta们只是试图使用任何碰巧最有效的方法来获得他们喜欢的结果。 麦金太尔认为，今天我们生活在一个由个人组成的支离破碎的社会中，Ta们对人类的善没有概念，无法走到一起追求共同的善，无法说服彼此关于共同的善可能是什么，事实上我们大多数人相信共同利益不存在也不可能存在。“在政治上，先进的西方现代社会是伪装成自由民主国家的寡头政治。大多数居住在那里的人都被排除在精英之外，精英决定了选民可以选择的备选范围。最根本的问题被排除在该范围的替代方案之外。” ( MacIntyre Reader 237；另见MacIntyre Reader248, 272)。麦金太尔所说的“最基本的问题”是指什么是个人和整个人类社区的最佳生活方式，以及如何对每个人进行排序以使另一个人蓬勃发展的问题。现代政治没有空间处理这些问题。
Alasdair MacIntyre, born on January 12, 1929, in Glasgow, Scotland, is a philosopher who has made outstanding contributions in the fields of moral philosophy, political philosophy, history of philosophy, and theology. He is currently the O'Brien Senior Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. I became familiar with MacIntyre because of his famous analogy of "the child playing chess." The analogy goes like this: In the process of teaching a child to play chess, adults may initially use external incentives (like candy) to attract the child to play the game. However, if the child gradually surpasses external incentives and starts to develop an intrinsic interest and sense of fulfillment in playing chess, then it can be seen as the child's transition to gaining internal goods through chess. Playing chess well without cheating becomes increasingly appealing, and the sole pursuit of rewards (candy) or winning the game becomes less important. MacIntyre believes in three core virtues: truthfulness, justice, and courage. If snacks (interests) alone provide sufficient reasons for a child to play chess, then the child has no reason not to resort to deceptive means (taking shortcuts/harming others' interests). If the child's goal is solely to win and obtain the reward of candy, they may not fully develop their potential or hone their chess skills. MacIntyre argues that politics should be a practice of internal goods, but currently, it only leads to external goods. Some win, some lose; no beneficial achievements are made for the entire community; deceit and exploitation are prevalent, which harms the entire community. (MacIntyre changed his terminology after After Virtue. He now refers to internal goods as "goods of excellence" and external goods as "goods of effectiveness." See MacIntyre Reader 55).
According to MacIntyre, those who engage in philosophical and political debates claim to use objective, rational, and universally applicable premises. But what they are actually doing, regardless of whether they acknowledge it or not, is using the language of morality to pursue their own preferences. They are not attempting to persuade others through reasoned argumentation, as rational arguments about morality require consensus on human interests, just as rational arguments in science rely on a shared definition of science and scientific practices. This consensus on human interests does not exist in the modern world (in fact, the modern world is defined by its absence in many respects). Therefore, any attempt at rational debate about morality or moral issues is destined to fail because liberalism asserts that everyone has the right to pursue happiness in their own way, and because the versions of personal happiness pursued are inevitably contradictory (I want to pray in school, you don't; I want to ban abortion, you support it; I want to tax the rich to support the poor, but you refuse). The other parties in the debate are fully aware that they are simply trying to use whatever happens to be the most effective means to achieve the results they desire.
MacIntyre argues that today we live in a fragmented society composed of individuals who have no concept of human goodness, cannot come together to pursue a common good, and cannot persuade each other about what the common good might be. In fact, most of us believe that there is no common interest and that it cannot exist. "In politics, advanced Western modern societies are oligarchies disguised as liberal democratic states. The majority of people who live there are excluded from the elites, who determine the range of alternatives that voters can choose from. The most fundamental questions are excluded from that range of alternatives" (MacIntyre Reader 237; also see MacIntyre Reader 248, 272). The "most fundamental questions" that MacIntyre refers to are what is the best way of life for individuals and for the whole human community, and how to rank individuals in a way that enables the flourishing of one another. Modern politics has no space to address these questions.
CXC Illustration Alasdair Maclntyre
这类似于为霍布斯的大量插画提供灵感的论点利维坦，在自然状态下不断争夺权力的斗争导致了孤独、贫穷、肮脏、野蛮和短暂的生活，并最终认识到需要一个拥有绝对权力的主权——尽管这当然，这不是 MacIntyre 提倡的解决方案。重要的是，麦金太尔并不是在建议我们应该仅仅在自由资本主义社会的边缘进行修补；他的目标是从根本上改变它。他不相信这会很快发生，也不会轻易发生，甚至可能根本不会发生，但他认为，如果不发生，对人类来说将是一场灾难。而人们，往往会选择简单的事情，而不是正确的事情。
This is similar to the argument presented in Leviathan, which provided inspiration for Hobbes' extensive illustrations. The argument in Leviathan suggests that the struggle for power in the state of nature leads to a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life, ultimately realizing the need for a sovereign with absolute power—although, of course, this is not the solution advocated by MacIntyre. Importantly, MacIntyre is not suggesting that we should merely patch up the edges of a free capitalist society; his aim is to fundamentally change it. He does not believe that this will happen quickly, easily, or perhaps even at all, but he considers it a catastrophe if it doesn't happen for humanity. And people often choose what is easy rather than what is right.
没有了，这一篇没头没尾的终章就到这里了，关于阿拉斯代尔也没看到啥小故事。最后的最后，附上本文中提到的一些人和没提到的一些人的照片。前面的四位在故事里都依次出现，讲了很多道理。后面三位，有的远，有的近，无一不活的勇敢而美丽。生性敏感，易怒，且不喜爱受人约束的妖精小姐 - 奥古斯塔·艾达·拜伦 Ada Lovelace Byron，长袜子皮皮和童话外婆Asterid Lindgren，还有2016年，从4746名参赛者中脱颖而出，入围色影无忌·2015新锐摄影奖，在2021年夏天遗憾离席的病女。当一种谬论成为普遍的事实，驳斥反而会变成强词夺理。㊗️未来安好！
“这次孩子们好像的确站在了正义一方，正义怎么能被苛责呢”-------- 郑执 《生吞》
That's the end of this unfinished and fragmented chapter, and there wasn't any specific anecdote about Alasdair MacIntyre mentioned. In the end, here are some photos of the individuals mentioned in this article and some who weren't mentioned. The first four individuals appeared in the story and shared many insights. The following three individuals, some distant and some closer, all lived bravely and beautifully. There's Augusta Ada Byron, a sensitive, quick-tempered, and non-conformist fairy lady; Astrid Lindgren, the creator of Pippi Longstocking and beloved fairy tales; and a woman who emerged as a finalist in the 2015 New Talent Photography Award and sadly ended up in prison in the summer of 2021 due to selling Independently Published Photography Books. When a fallacy becomes a common fact, refuting it can seem unreasonable. May the future be well!
"The children seemed to be on the side of justice this time, how could justice be criticized?" - Zheng Zhi, from the novel "Swallowing"
文末的彩蛋
奥运会秘密
🎬《恋爱回旋》2017
凌晨三点李小龙 - LiShaoLong
工业革命 https://www.britannica.com/topic/modernization/Modern-society-and-world-society 齐美尔 https://www.dhm.de/lemo/biografie/georg-simmel 雅斯贝尔斯 www.futurelearn.com www.futurelearn.com 鲍曼 https://032c.com/zygmunt-bauman-love-fear-and-the-network/ 麦金太尔 https://iep.utm.edu/p-macint/
Comments