//
自由與焦慮--我們內心的上帝與蠕蟲
//
「Can freedom become a burden, too heavy for man to bear, something he tries to escape from?」
"自由會變成一種負擔，而這負擔卻又太重了，以至於人類無法承受嗎？」
Man is a creature forever pulled between two extremes, between what some have called our inner god and our inner worm.
人類是一種永遠被在兩個極端之間拉扯的生物，在一些人所說的我們內在的上帝和我們內在的蠕蟲之間
Our inner god represents our powers of imagination and our symbolic awareness which together grant us the ability to project into the future and to envisage almost limitless possibilities.
我們內心的上帝代表著我們想像力的力量和我們象徵性的意識，它們共同賦予我們展望未來的能力，以及幾乎擁有無限可能性的想像力。
Our inner god offers us the gift of psychological freedom.
我們內心的上帝賜予我們心理上的自由。
It shows us what we could be and tells us that the creation of our destiny is at least partly in our hands, if we can but move forward into the realm of the possible.
它向我們展示了我們可以成為什麼樣的人，並告訴我們，如果我們能夠進入可能的領域，我們的命運至少部分掌握在我們手中。
But alongside our inner god exists our inner worm and this is the side of us which fears freedom and keeps us tied, like all other animals, to a limited set of behaviors and a limited set of possibilities.
但是在我們內心的上帝旁邊，有我們內心的蠕蟲，這是我們害怕自由的一面，讓我們像所有其他動物一樣，被束縛在有限的行為和有限的可能性上。
Unfortunately, for many it is our inner worm, not our inner god, which is the ruling factor of our life.
不幸的是，對很多人來說，是我們內心的蠕蟲，而不是我們內心的上帝，才是我們生活的主宰因素。
We fear psychological freedom more than we desire it, and in this video we are going to investigate why.
我們對心理自由的恐懼超過我們對它的渴望，在這段視頻中，我們將探究其中的原因。
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
「Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.
對一個人和一個人類社會來說，沒有什麼比自由更令人難以忍受的了。
Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.」
人類最苦惱的事情，莫過於迅速找到一個他者，把這個命運多舛的生靈與生俱來的自由天賦交給他。
If psychological freedom entails the ability to envisage constructive ways to change to our life and to then act upon these possibilities, why should we fear this?
如果心理自由需要能夠設想出建設性的方式來改變我們的生活，然後對這些可能性採取行動，那麼我們為什麼要對此擔心呢？
According to Dostoevsky one of the main reasons for this is due to the intimate connection between freedom and anxiety – for anxiety follows freedom as its shadow.
陀思妥耶夫斯基認為，造成這一現象的主要原因之一是自由與焦慮之間存在著密切的聯繫，因為焦慮的影子就是自由。
Our ability to project into the future and to imagine how things could be makes us aware of better ways of living, but we can never be certain if the pursuit of the possible will contribute more to our salvation or more to our suffering.
我們有能力預測未來，想像事情會如何發展，這讓我們意識到更好的生活方式，但我們永遠無法確定，對可能的追求是會對我們的救贖更有益，還是會對我們的痛苦更有益。
We may be godlike in our ability to conceive of the possible, but we lack the omniscient power to know if we are correct in what we see and if we are capable of achieving what we desire.
我們想像可能性的能力可能像上帝一樣，但我們缺乏無所不知的力量，無法知道我們所看到的是否正確，以及我們是否有能力實現我們的願望。
And so our inner god wants to pursue the possible but our inner worm fears what will become of us if we do.
所以我們內心的上帝想要追求可能，但是我們內心的蠕蟲害怕如果我們這樣做，我們會變成什麼樣子。
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
This strange mixture of desire and dread that arises in the face of the possible creates an inner conflict which for Kierkegaard is the essence of anxiety.
這種奇怪的欲望和恐懼的混合物，在面對可能時產生，創造了一個內在的衝突，這對克爾凱郭爾來說是焦慮的本質。
For as he put it, anxiety「…is a desire for what one dreads, a sympathetic antipathy.
正如他所說，焦慮是一種恐懼的欲望，一種同情的反感。
Anxiety is an alien power which lays hold of an individual, and yet one cannot tear oneself away, nor has a will to do so; for one fears, but what one fears one desires.
焦慮是一種陌生的力量，它抓住了一個人，但一個人不能把自己擺脫，也沒有這樣做的意願;人所恐懼的，正是人所期望的。
Anxiety then makes the individual impotent.」
焦慮會使個體變得無能為力。
Or as Rollo May explained:
或者像羅洛·梅解釋的那樣
「Anxiety is the state of man…when he confronts his freedom…
焦慮是人在面對自由時的一種狀態
Whenever possibility is visualized by an individual, anxiety is potentially present in the same experience…
當一個人看到可能性的時候，同樣的經歷中就有潛在的焦慮
Such possibilities, like roads ahead which cannot be known since one has not yet traversed and experienced them, involve anxiety…
這樣的可能性，就像前面的路，因為還沒有走過、還沒有經歷過，所以就無法知道，這些都包含著焦慮
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
To Kierkegaard, the more possibility…an individual has, the more potential anxiety he has at the same time.」
對於克爾凱郭爾來說，一個人擁有更多的可能性……他同時就具有更大的潛在焦慮感。」
To protect ourselves from the anxiety which accompanies psychological freedom, the 20th century psychologist Erich Fromm proposed that we enact behavioral strategies in order to flee from freedom.
為了保護我們自己不受伴隨心理自由而來的焦慮，20世紀的心理學家Erich Fromm提出了我們為了逃離自由而制定的行為策略。
He called such strategies 「mechanisms of escape」 and argued that these mechanisms of escape are primarily motivated by masochistic strivings.
他把這種策略稱為逃跑機制，並認為這些逃跑機制主要是受虐者的鬥爭所激發的。
In popular culture masochism is typically associated with sexuality, but Sigmund Freud isolated a more prevalent form of masochism which he termed moral masochism, and which the psychoanalyst Anita Weinreb Katz defined as:
在流行文化中，受虐狂通常與性有關，但西格蒙德弗洛伊德(Sigmund Freud)分離出了一種更為普遍的受虐狂形式，他稱之為道德受虐，心理分析學家安妮塔溫裡布卡茨(Anita Weinreb Katz)將其定義為道德受虐狂
「…any behavioral act, verbalization, or fantasy that – by unconscious design – is physically or psychically injurious to oneself, self-defeating, humiliating, or unduly self-sacrificing.」
「……通過無意識的設計而對自身造成身體或心理傷害，自欺欺人，侮辱性或過度自我犧牲的任何行為，言語或幻想。」
On the surface moral masochism appears puzzling.
從表面上看，道德受虐情緒令人感到困惑。
For how can a longing for submission, for humiliation and suffering and for the belittlement of one’s self, be felt as a worthy objective to strive for?
為什麼會將屈從，屈辱和痛苦以及對自己的貶低的渴望，視為一個值得努力的目標？
But Fromm thought the riddle of moral masochism can be solved when viewed as an attempt to escape from the anxieties of freedom by submitting to a powerful Other.
但弗洛姆認為，道德受虐的謎題可以通過屈服於一個強大的他者來擺脫對自由的焦慮而得到解決。
Whether the masochist submits to an external god, a church, a nation, the state, a leader, an ideology, a company, a significant other, a drug or an inner compulsion, the objective, according to Fromm, is always the same.
根據弗洛姆的觀點，無論受虐者屈從於外在的上帝、教堂、國家、國家領導人、意識形態、公司、重要的他人、毒品還是內心的衝動，他們的目標都是一樣的。
The masochist cannot bear the anxieties of choice – of possibility and freedom – and so happily he hands over the reins of his soul to a master.
受虐狂無法忍受選擇可能性和自由所帶來的焦慮，所以他很高興地把靈魂的韁繩交給了主人。
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Or as Fromm wrote:
如弗洛姆所寫到的：
「The masochistic person, whether his master is an authority outside of himself or whether he has internalized the master as conscience or a psychic compulsion, is saved from making decisions, saved from the final responsibility for the fate of his self, and thereby saved from the doubt of what decision to make.
受虐狂不管他的主人是一個權威之外的自己或他已經將其內化為良心或心理衝動，都促使他迴避作抉擇,擺脫了對自己命運的最終責任,從而免於懷疑應當做何種抉擇。
He is also saved from the doubt of what the meaning of his life is or who 「he」 is.
他也從他生命的意義或他是誰的疑問中被拯救出來。
These questions are answered by the relationship to the power to which he has attached himself.
這些問題的答案是與他所依附的權力的關係。
The meaning of his life and the identity of his self are determined by the greater whole into which the self has submerged.」
他的生命的意義和他的自我的同一性是由更大的整體所決定的，而這個整體是自我所浸沒的。
Moral masochism is ruinous to psychological health.
道德受虐對心理健康是毀滅性的。
he extreme dependency the masochist develops for a powerful Other leads to infantilization and the enthusiastic acceptance of chains.
受虐者對另一個強大的人的極度依賴導致了嬰兒化和對束縛的狂熱接受。
「The rejection of freedom does not leave a man unpunished.
拒絕自由並不意味著一個人不受懲罰。
It turns him into a slave of necessity.」
它把他變成了一個自然規律的奴隸。
Yet a masochistic flight from freedom also has wider social and political effects.
然而，從自由中逃離的受虐狂也有更廣泛的社會和政治影響。
For it is easy to find numerous examples of societies who citizens feared freedom to such a degree that the only means of escape they saw was to submit to a powerful Other in the form of an authoritarian regime.
因為我們很容易找到許多這樣的例子:公民對自由的恐懼達到了這樣的程度，以至於他們所看到的唯一逃脫的辦法就是屈服於一個強大的威權政權。
「…people grasp at political authoritarianism in the desperate need to be relieved of anxiety.」
「……人們在急需擺脫焦慮的情況下選擇了政治威權主義。」
In her book The Quest of our Lives, the author Ida Wylie notes a telling comment from a young German slightly before the horrors of World War II:
作家艾達·威利(Ida Wylie)在她的《我們生活的探索》(The Quest of our Lives)一書中，提到了一位年輕德國人在二戰恐怖之前的一段頗有說服力的評論
「We Germans are so happy. We are free from freedom.」
我們德國人太幸福了。因為我們沒有自由了。
The negative social effects of moral masochism are not only seen in mass submission to an authoritarian regime.
道德受虐的負面社會影響不僅體現在對專制政權的大規模屈服上。
For a more covert mechanism of masochistic escape exists, and this involves submission to the tyranny of the majority, or what Fromm labelled as obedience to 「…common sense, science, psychic health, normality, public opinion.」
因為存在著一種更隱蔽的受虐逃跑機制，這包括服從多數人的暴政，或者弗洛姆所說的服從常識、科學、心理健康、正常狀態和公眾輿論。
The strategy behind this mechanism of escape involves identifying ourselves so thoroughly with whatever society deems 「self-evident」, 「normal」, and 「expected」, that we are saved from having to formulate and commit ourselves to our own principles, values, beliefs, and ways of life.
這種逃避機制背後的策略包括徹底認同我們自己與任何社會認為不證自明的、正常的和預期的東西，這樣我們就不必制定和承諾我們自己的原則、價值觀、信仰和生活方式。
We repress our awareness of possibilities and accept only that which is socially-given.
我們壓抑自己對可能性的意識，只接受社會賦予的可能性。
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
This mechanism of escape may protect us from the anxieties of freedom, but the more we obey the tyranny of the majority the more we lose our self and the more society becomes inhabited by automatons who ostracize all who dare to deviate from the status-quo.
這種逃避機制或許可以保護我們免受自由的焦慮，但我們越是服從多數人的暴政，我們就越迷失自我，社會就越會被排斥所有敢於脫離現狀的人而被機器化的人所佔據。
As Rollo May wrote:
正如羅洛·梅所寫
「. . .there is no political freedom that is not indissolubly bound up to the inner personal freedom of the individuals who make up that nation, no liberty of a nation of conformists, no free nation made up of robots.」
「政治自由一直受組成該民族的個人的內在個人自由的束縛，沒有一個由遵從者組成的民族是自由的，也沒有一個由機器化的人組成的民族是自由的民族。」
Given that moral masochism makes us weak and servile and promotes the enslavement of a society, we must ask: what can we do to develop the strength to bear the anxiety that freedom elicits and to move forward into life instead of remaining stagnant?
鑑於道德上的受虐情緒使我們變得虛弱和奴役，並促進了社會的奴役，我們必須要問：我們應該採取什麼措施來發展力量來承受自由所引起的焦慮，並參與到生活中而不是停滯不前呢？
How can we re-ignite the god within?
我們如何重新喚醒內在的上帝呢？
Remembering that psychological freedom is the awareness of possibilities plus the courage to move forward into the possible, Kierkegaard suggested that one way to become free is to recognize that when it comes to the decision of whether to pursue the possible, it is always better to take the risk and to 「venture」 into the unknown.
請記住心理自由是意識的可能性加上向前進的勇氣,克爾凱郭爾認為獲得自由的方法之一是認識到,當涉及到決定是否要追求可能性時,冒險進入未知的風險總是更好的,。
「Freedom lies in being bold.」
自由在於勇敢。」
Or as Kierkegaard echoed:
或者正如克爾凱郭爾所說的
「…by not venturing, it is so dreadfully easy to lose that which it would be difficult to lose in even the most venturesome venture…
……不冒險，就容易失去它，即使是最冒險的也很難保證不失去它……」
For if I have ventured amiss – very well, then life helps me by its punishment.
因為如果我選擇冒險，好的，生活會通過懲罰我來幫助我。
But if I have not ventured at all – who then helps me?」
但是，如果我根本沒有冒險，那麼誰來幫助我呢？」
In choosing a life of venturing, in embracing the possible even though this means inviting uncertainty into our life, we will not be tempted to resort to moral masochism.
在選擇冒險的生活時，在擁抱可能的時候，即使這意味著給我們的生活帶來不確定性，我們將不會受到訴諸道德受虐的誘惑。
Rather, in venturing we continually expand the confines of our comfort zone, we learn how to remain resilient in the face of failure, and we cultivate courage, self-reliance, independence, and hence, self-respect.
相反，在冒險的過程中，我們不斷地拓展自己的舒適區，我們學會了如何在面對失敗時保持韌性，我們培養了勇氣、自立、獨立，因此也培養了自尊。
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
And so but one question remains: will we embrace our inner god and choose a life of courageous venturing, or will we succumb to our inner worm, flee from the anxieties of freedom, and seek out someone or something to call master?
但還有一個問題仍然存在：我們會擁抱內心的神並選擇勇敢冒險的生活，還是會屈服於內心的蠕蟲，逃避自由的焦慮，尋找可以被視作主人的人或東西呢？
「The first act of freedom is to choose it.」 wrote the psychologist William James.
自由的第一步是選擇它。心理學家威廉·詹姆斯寫道。
And the second is to take the actions that are necessary to be free and realize that life is short and the greatest suffering comes not to those who are bold but to those who remain cowardly.
第二，採取必要的行動，使自己獲得自由，並認識到生命是短暫的，最大的痛苦不是降臨在那些勇敢的人身上，而是降臨在那些怯懦的人身上。
「The sea is dangerous and its storms terrible, but these obstacles have never been sufficient reason to remain ashore.
大海是危險的，風暴是可怕的，但這些障礙從來就不是留在岸上的充分理由。
Unlike the mediocre, intrepid spirits seek victory over those things that seem impossible.
與平庸的人不同，勇敢的人尋求對似乎不可能的事情的勝利。
It is with an iron will that they embark on the most daring of all endeavors, to meet the shadowy future without fear and conquer the unknown.」
正是帶著鋼鐵般的意志，他們開始了所有最大膽的努力，無所畏懼地迎接黑暗的未來，徵服未知。