如果你喜歡Aeon Magazine的話,請把它介紹給你喜歡的朋友;
如果你討厭Aeon Magazine的話,請把它介紹給你討厭的朋友。
Aeon Psyche || Love shouldn’t be blind or mad. Instead, fall rationally in loveHold it right there! Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity (1953).In her memoir Crazy Love (2009), the American feminist writer Leslie Morgan Steiner details the domestic violence she suffered during her four-year relationship with her ex-husband Conor. He choked her, punched her, banged her against a wall, knocked her down the stairs, broke glass over her face, held a gun to her head, took the keys out of the ignition on the highway. There were clear warning signs early on in their relationship. While having sex, five days prior to their wedding, Conor choked her until she almost passed out: 『His hands tightened around my throat … My eyes began to water. My body began to writhe involuntarily. Panic spread across my chest.』 『I own you,』 he told her before he came. Although she knew that she was about to marry a dangerous man, Steiner didn’t call off the wedding. She was in love.美國女權主義作家萊斯利·摩根·斯坦娜(Leslie Morgan Steiner)在她的回憶錄《瘋狂的愛》(2009)中詳細描述了她與前夫康納交往四年期間遭受的家庭暴力。他掐住她的喉嚨,用拳頭打她,把她撞到牆上,把她摔下樓梯,照著她臉上砸碎玻璃,用槍指著她的頭,在高速公路上緊急剎車。他們的關係在早期就明顯很緊張。距他們婚禮還有五天時,發生性關係途中康納掐住了她,直到她幾乎暈過去:「他的手緊緊地掐住了我的喉嚨……我的眼睛開始流淚,身體不由自主地發抖。恐慌在我的內心蔓延開來。」「你是我的,」他高潮之前對她說。儘管她知道她將要嫁給一個危險的男人,斯坦娜並沒有取消婚禮。她戀愛了。As the title of the memoir makes plain, Steiner’s love is deeply irrational, verging on madness. Victims of domestic violence sometimes stay with their abuser out of fear of repercussions and backlash if they leave. This makes sense. But Steiner didn’t stay out of fear. Not initially, at least. When Conor broke a glass frame over her head, slitting open her face, her only thoughts were: 『Don’t let this happen. I do still love him. He is my family.』 Staying with your abuser out of love, as Steiner did, is irrational because it vitiates prudential – or 『self-regarding』 – concerns, which are the hallmark of practical rationality.回憶錄的標題清楚地表明,斯坦娜的愛是極度不理性的,近乎瘋狂。家庭暴力的受害者有時會留在施虐者身邊,因為擔心一旦離開會產生不良後果。這是說得通的。但是斯坦娜並沒有逃避恐懼。至少一開始並沒有。當康納在她的頭上砸碎玻璃框時,玻璃渣割傷了她的臉,她唯一的想法是:「不要讓這種事情發生了。我仍然愛他。他是我的家人。」像斯坦娜那樣,出於愛而和施虐者待在一起是不理性的,因為這會削弱謹慎——或者說『自我尊重』——的擔憂,而這些擔憂正是實踐理性的標誌。When Steiner’s memoir was first released, various commenters aired their objections to critical assessments of Steiner’s decision to stay with her abuser on the grounds that we shouldn’t blame the victim. Even when a victim worships her abuser for reasons of love, they argued, only the batterer is accountable for the harm inflicted. They are right, of course. Steiner clearly isn’t responsible for the abuse she suffered. But her delirious love for Conor impaired her ability to make rational decisions. This is the dark side of love.當斯坦娜的回憶錄首次出版時,許多評論者反對那些對斯坦娜留在施虐者身邊的決定的批判,理由是我們不應該責怪受害者。他們認為,即使受害者出於愛而崇拜施虐者,也只有施虐者應對所造成的傷害負責。當然,他們是對的。斯坦娜顯然對她遭受的虐待沒有責任。但她對康納瘋狂的愛削弱了她做出理性決定的能力。這就是愛的陰暗面。As I have argued in my book On Romantic Love (2015), rational love – love that is sane, sound and sensible – is reason-responsive, grounded in reality and consonant with your overall mindset. These are lofty ideals but not unachievable goals. For love to be reason-responsive it must yield to reasons against it – reasons that your love is inimical to your interests. Your interests are those states of affairs that further your overall flourishing, or wellbeing. Performing an unpleasant activity might be in your best interest if it promotes your overall wellbeing. Think pelvic exams, colonoscopies and root canals – or breaking up with someone you are madly in love with. Despite knowing that Conor presented a threat to her safety and wellbeing, Steiner didn’t get out until she had suffered four years of domestic abuse. Instead, she rationalised the beatings and hid her bruises. Her love was immune to reason.正如我在我的《關於浪漫愛情》(2015)一書中所論述的,理性的愛——理智、健全和明智的愛——具有理性回應能力,立足於現實,並與你的整體思維方式一致。這些是比較理想化的圖景,但並不是無法實現的目標。如果愛能夠作出理性的回應,它就必須承認那些反對它的理由,即有些愛是對個人利益有害的。你的利益是那些可以促進你整體發展或幸福的事物狀態。如果做一件讓人不愉快的事情能提升你的整體幸福感,那麼它可能最符合你的利益。考慮一下盆腔檢查、結腸鏡檢查和根管治療——或者和你瘋狂愛著的人分手。儘管斯坦娜知道康納對她的安全和幸福構成了威脅,但她在持續遭受了四年的家暴之後才脫身。相反,她為康納對自己的毆打尋找藉口,並隱藏了瘀傷。這樣的愛是不理智的。For love to be grounded in reality it must be based on an accurate perception of the beloved, not fantasy, reverie or illusion. Love fuelled by a projection of a saint-like idealisation on to the beloved is bound to dwindle once the image of unbending perfection disintegrates and the real person, with her unsaintly flaws, is left in its place. Sustained only by fantasy and illusion, love that idealises the beloved is void of rationality. Steiner’s perception of Conor is fantastical in its nature. Even after years of battery, she puts him on a pedestal, emphasising how brilliant, funny and fascinating he is, convinced in her naivety that he is her 『soul mate』.愛要建立在現實之上,就必須建立在對所愛之人的準確感知上,而不是幻想、遐想或幻覺。一旦無懈可擊的完美形象瓦解,取而代之的是那個跌落神壇的、渾身缺點的凡俗之人,以對其聖人般的理想化投射為燃料的愛必然會減弱。僅靠幻想和幻覺才能維持的、把所愛之人理想化的愛是不理性的。斯坦娜對康納的感知本質上是虛幻的。即使在經歷了多年的毆打後,她仍然把他捧為偶像,強調他是多麼的聰明、有趣和迷人,她天真地相信,他是她的「靈魂伴侶」。All-consuming love is coupled with a brain chemistry similar to that of people addicted to cocaine全情投入的愛類似大腦中的一種化學物質,就像對古柯鹼上癮的人一樣To be consonant with your overall mindset, love must cohere with your beliefs, desires and emotions and not breed internal inconsistency. The love part of love-hate relationships is a paradigm example of love that vitiates this ideal. To love someone is to have a strong desire to promote their interests. But when you hate someone, you don’t want to promote their interests, and probably want to impede them. Simultaneously loving and hating someone thus breeds internal inconsistency, or what is also known as 『cognitive dissonance』. It’s a kind of defence mechanism, where you often suppress your hatred to avoid the uncomfortable realisation that your relationship is dysfunctional. During her four-year relationship with Conor, Steiner’s rationalisations of his egregious behaviour become increasingly riven with internal contradictions and efforts to suppress her own anger and hatred.為了與你的整體思維方式保持一致,愛必須與你的信仰、欲望和情感保持一致,並且不能滋生內在矛盾。愛恨關係中愛的部分,就是愛破壞了這一理想的範例。愛一個人就是有強烈的欲望去促進他的利益。但當你討厭某人時,你並不想促進他們的利益,甚至可能想阻礙他們。愛和恨同時產生了內在的矛盾,也就是所謂的「認知失調」。這是一種防禦機制,你經常壓抑你的仇恨,以避免不自覺地意識到你們的關係是不正常的。在斯坦娜與康納交往的四年中,她對康納惡劣行為的辯解,愈發被內在的矛盾、努力壓抑自己憤怒和仇恨弄得支離破碎。Crazy love forgoes at least one of these ideals, and sometimes all of them, as Steiner’s did. When we are madly in love, we close our eyes to the truth or edit it carefully before taking it in. We overlook obvious faults of character and personality. We leave our children, max out our credit cards and throw away friends, family and career. We put up with bad manners and rude behaviour, even violence. Alas, knowing just how costly crazy love can be doesn’t deter it from digging its claws deeper into our flesh.瘋狂的愛至少放棄其中的一個理想,有時甚至放棄全部,就像斯坦娜那樣。當我們瘋狂地戀愛時,我們會對真相視而不見,或者在接受真相之前仔細地美化它。我們對所愛之人性格和個性上明顯的缺點視而不見。我們拋棄了孩子,刷爆了信用卡,拋棄了朋友、家庭和事業。我們容忍不禮貌和粗魯的行為,甚至暴力。唉,即使知道瘋狂的愛代價如此之高,也無法阻止它伸出魔爪對我們予取予求。Why don’t we avoid crazy love like the plague? Why do we, in fact, strive to fall so madly in love? The answer turns on our pesky brain chemicals: all-consuming love is coupled with a brain chemistry similar to that of people addicted to cocaine or methamphetamine. Taking the drug (ie, realising your crush has a crush on you, or spending an intimate afternoon with your sweetheart) leads to a hyperactivation of the brain’s dopamine system. But when your beloved is acting unpredictably, creating uncertainty about where you stand, the brain’s levels of dopamine plummet, and your stabbing pangs of longing numb your critical faculties and urge you to take desperate measures to restore balance. This is the mindset of an addict, a mindset that is hijacked by brain chemicals and is unyielding to reason.為什麼我們不能像逃避瘟疫一樣遠離瘋狂的愛呢?我們為什麼要如此瘋狂地墜入愛河?答案就在我們討厭的大腦化學物質上:所有的愛都伴隨著一種大腦化學物質,類似於古柯鹼或甲基苯丙胺上癮的人。服用這種藥物(比如,意識到你的愛慕對象對你有好感,或者和你的愛人共度一個親密的下午)會導致大腦多巴胺系統的過度激活。但是,當你的愛人做出不可預測的行為,讓你對自己的立場也猶豫不決時,大腦中的多巴胺水平直線下降,你那刺痛的渴望麻木了你的判斷力,迫使你不顧一切地採取措施來恢復平衡。這是癮君子的心態,一種被大腦化學物質劫持的心態,一種不屈服於理性的心態。Not long after meeting Conor, Steiner starts exhibiting the thoughts and behaviours of an addict. 『It’s like jet fuel, being with him. It’s like we’re one person … I have never felt like this … I feel like the luckiest girl in the world.』 And at first Conor seemed like a dream come true. Not only was he handsome and smart, he was a real gentleman, projecting an image of unbending integrity: 『He never reached over to pat my thigh or arm, as so many men did way too early.』 He even quit alcohol altogether when he found out that Steiner didn’t drink. Whereas her friends and coworkers 『bemoaned their boyfriends』 fear of commitment』, Conor gave her a key to his apartment only months into their relationship. How masterfully he manipulates her. How quickly the idyllic relationship turned nightmarish.與康納見面後不久,斯坦娜就開始表現出癮君子的想法和行為。「和他在一起就像衝上雲霄一樣。我從來沒有這樣的感覺,我覺得自己是世界上最幸運的女孩。一開始,康納就像一場成真的美夢一樣。他不僅英俊瀟灑,而且是個真正的紳士,給人一種不屈不撓的正直形象:「他從來沒有像很多男人那樣過早地伸手拍拍我的大腿或胳膊。當他發現斯坦娜不喝酒時,他甚至完全滴酒不沾了。當她的朋友和同事們「抱怨她們的男朋友害怕承諾」時,康納在他們戀愛幾個月後就給了她一把他公寓的鑰匙。他多麼熟練地操縱著她。這段田園詩般的完美關係很快就變成了噩夢。There has been a major pushback against the idea of subjecting love to rational evaluation. The American philosopher Laurence Thomas, for example, has argued in his essay 『Reasons for Loving』 (1991) that: 『There are no rational considerations whereby anyone can lay claim to another’s love or insist that an individual’s love for another is irrational.』 This view is encapsulated in received wisdom in the form of sayings such as 『Love is blind,』 『Love has no reason,』 and 『Love is temporary insanity.』 We cannot lay claim to another’s love because, according to Thomas: 『There is no irrationality involved in ceasing to love a person whom one once loved immensely, although the person has not changed.』「將愛置於理性評價」的觀點受到了強烈的反對。例如,美國哲學家勞倫斯·託馬斯(Laurence Thomas)在其著作《愛的理由》(1991)中指出:「任何人都可以佔有他人的愛,或者堅稱個人對他人的愛是非理性的,所以(根本)不存在理性考慮之說。」這一觀點被概括為一些諺語,如「愛是盲目的」、「愛是沒有理由的」和「愛是暫時的瘋狂」。我們不能(永遠)佔有他人的愛,因為根據託馬斯的說法:「停止愛一個曾經深愛的人並沒有什麼不合理的,儘管這個人並沒有改變。」Is this widespread opinion correct? Is it irrational to stop loving a person 『just because』, and not because the person has changed? Should we stay with people we once loved but love no more? Surely not. You shouldn’t stick around in a relationship with someone you don’t love, even if there’s no good reason not to love them. But the idea that love can be assessed for rationality doesn’t imply that you should do so. Rationality concerns your interests, not the interests of others. If you have fallen out of love with your partner, it is – all things being equal – in your best interest to end the relationship. That’s the logical thing to do.這個普遍的觀點正確嗎?停止愛一個人「無需理由」,而不是因為這個人變了,這是不理性的嗎?我們應該和曾經愛過但不再愛的人在一起嗎?當然不是。你不應該和你不愛的人在一起,即使沒有理由不去愛他們。但是,「愛情的理性可評估「的觀點並不意味著你就應該這樣做。「理性」關心的是你自己的利益,而不是別人的利益。如果你已經不再愛你的伴侶了,那麼在一切都不變的情況下,結束這段關係對你來說是最有利的。這是合乎邏輯的。What duties we have to others is a question of morality, not rationality. We don’t have any default moral duties to love anyone romantically. But promises, agreements, contracts and laws do sometimes bring into existence duties to love, and once you have an antecedent obligation to love another person, they can rightfully lay claim to your love. For example, you have a duty to take care of the basic needs of children in your custody, and love is a basic need. Similarly, if you marry someone, you enter into a contract that brings certain duties into existence, for instance, a duty to love, as articulated in the wedding vow that has taken root in American popular culture:我們對他人負有的責任是一個道德問題,而不是理性問題。我們沒有任何默認的道德義務去浪漫地愛任何人。但是,諾言、協議、合同和法律有時確實帶來了愛的義務,一旦你有了愛另一個人的先行義務,他們就可以正當地要求得到你的愛。例如,你有責任照顧你所監護的孩子的基本需求,而愛就是一種基本需求。同樣地,如果你和某人結婚,你會籤訂一份合同,其中包含了某些義務,例如,愛的義務,就像已經根植於美國流行文化的結婚誓言中所表達的那樣:I, Gigi, take you, Lilly, to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.
我,吉吉,願意娶你,莉莉,成為我的合法妻子,從今以後永遠擁有、堅守你,無論境遇是好是壞,是富貴是貧賤,是健康是疾病,都會愛你,珍惜你,直到死亡將我們分開。
So, if you enter into a marriage contract with another person, they can rightfully lay claim to your love. The marriage gives them a claims right, and if you fail to deliver, you are in breach of contract, and might end up as a defendant in a civil lawsuit. Be careful what you promise.所以,如果你和另一個人進入婚姻,他們可以合法地要求得到你的愛。婚姻賦予了他們索賠權,如果你不能履行,你就違反了合同,最終可能會成為一場民事訴訟的被告。你應該對你的諾言謹慎一些。If your love puts your partner on a pedestal, turns a deaf ear to reason and makes you conflicted about your love for him or her, then you are in the grip of crazy, irrational love. Because we naturally crave the thrills and dangers of irrational love, choosing to call it quits can be hard. But if you stay in a toxic relationship, your mental and physical wounds may never heal. As the old saying goes, holding onto broken love is like standing on splintered glass. If you stay, you will keep hurting. If you walk, you will hurt, but eventually you will heal.如果你的愛把你的伴侶捧在神座上,對理性充耳不聞,讓你在對他或她的愛的矛盾中掙扎,那麼你就陷入了瘋狂的、非理性的愛中。因為我們天生渴望這種非理性愛情的刺激和危險,所以選擇放棄是很困難的。但如果你一直處於一段有害的關係中,你的精神和身體創傷可能永遠無法癒合。俗話說,抓住破碎的愛情不放就像站在破碎的玻璃上。如果你留下,你會一直受傷。如果你離開,你依然會受傷,但你終究會痊癒。