Skip to content

Category: Philosophy

There’s more to life than being happy?

刚在微博上看到严锋老师转发了一场 TED 演讲 There’s more to life than being happy (by Emily Esfahani Smith)。有人总结到「追求快乐让人变得不快乐」,严锋老师说「过份追求快乐让人变得不快乐」。这个话题让我突然有很多话想说。

我们先来看一看 Emily 的开场白:

I used to think the whole purpose of life was pursuing happiness. Everyone said the path to happiness was success, so I searched for that ideal job, that perfect boyfriend, that beautiful apartment. But instead of ever feeling fulfilled, I felt anxious and adrift. And I wasn’t alone; my friends — they struggled with this, too.

我曾经认为生活的全部目的就是追求快乐/幸福(按:happiness 既可以表示短暂的快乐又可以表示较长时段的幸福状态)。每个人都说通往快乐/幸福的道路是成功,所以我追求理想的工作,追求完美的男朋友,追求漂亮的公寓。但是我没有感到满足,我感到的是焦虑和迷茫。不只是我,我的朋友们也有同样的困扰。

后来 Emily 就去学习积极心理学(positive psychology),读了很多心理学、神经科学和哲学的书——恰好也是我最感兴趣的三个领域。她发现,数据显示,追求快乐反而让人不快乐,尽管大家的生活条件越来越好,但抑郁、甚至自杀的人却越来越多。而研究认为这并不是因为他们缺少快乐,而是缺少生活的意义。于是 Emily 开始追问快乐(being happy)和生活的意义(having meaning in life)有什么区别。

Many psychologists define happiness as a state of comfort and ease, feeling good in the moment. Meaning, though, is deeper. The renowned psychologist Martin Seligman says meaning comes from belonging to and serving something beyond yourself and from developing the best within you. Our culture is obsessed with happiness, but I came to see that seeking meaning is the more fulfilling path. And the studies show that people who have meaning in life, they’re more resilient, they do better in school and at work, and they even live longer.

许多心理学家将快乐定义为一种舒适和安逸的状态,也就是在某个时刻感觉很好。而人生的意义是更深一层的概念。著名心理学家马丁·塞利格曼(按:积极心理学之父)说,意义来自归属和服务于超越你自己的事物,来自发展你内心中最好的部分。我们的文化痴迷于追求快乐,但我逐渐认识到寻求人生意义更让人满足。研究表明,有生活意义的人适应能力更强,在学校和工作中表现更好,甚至寿命也更长。

接下来的演讲就是 Emliy 分享自己找到的怎样寻求人生意义的四种方式(four pillars of a meaningful life):归属感(belonging)、目的(purpose)、超越(transcendence)、讲故事(storytelling)。Emily 的确讲了很多故事,四种方式各讲了一个故事,讲完还继续讲了自己的故事和父亲的故事。这里就暂且略过。最后她总结到:快乐的感觉有来有去捉摸不定,意义才能让我们掌握人生(Happiness comes and goes. But when life is really good and when things are really bad, having meaning gives you something to hold on to)。

接下来我谈谈感想。

我觉得虽然这是一场 TED 演讲,但其实论证方式特别像心灵鸡汤。我直奔主题,我们思考一下,Emily 的演讲从头到尾证明的是在人生中除了快乐之外还有其他重要之事(there’s more to life than being happy)吗?或者说她证明的是追求快乐反而会让人不快乐吗?

回到 Emily 的开场白,谁说追求快乐就一定等同于追求世俗意义的成功呢?Emily 和她的朋友追求好工作、好伴侣、好房子没有获得满足,最多只能证明这些追求快乐的途径可能有问题,但并不能证明「追求快乐」本身有问题,不能证明不应该「追求快乐」。Emily 说自己通过追求这些没有获得满足,感到焦虑和迷茫,也就是追求某些目标让人感到不快乐,可以得出的结论应该是:这些具体目标,或者追求这些目标的方式方法可能不太对。也许我们追求另外一些目标更容易获得快乐,也许同样是追求这些目标,但换其他一些追求方式我们更容易获得快乐。

Emily 随后讲的意义,以及寻求意义的四种方式(归属感、目的、超越、讲故事),其实都可以认为是她找到的另一些追求快乐的方式。撇开她举例论证的效力问题,她可以证明的其实只是某些目标或者某些方式不容易实现快乐,而追求另一些目标或者另一些方法比较容易实现快乐,这并没有贬低快乐本身,也没有必要去抬高一个玄乎的人生意义(积极心理学之父给出的关于意义的定义实在很想吐嘈)。

The Power of Collider

最近一直在读之前提到的 The Book of Why,我觉得 collider 的概念可能是这本书里最重要的几个概念之一。本来我也可以用自己的语言写一个介绍,但好像懒得动笔,就节选书中几段话放在这里(顺序是我刻意安排的)。

X 与 Y 相关的三种解释:

  1. X 是 Y 的原因;
  2. X 和 Y 有共同的原因;
  3. collider。

We live our lives as if the common cause principle were true. Whenever we see patterns, we look for a causal explanation. In fact, we hunger for an explanation, in terms of stable mechanisms that lie outside the data. The most satisfying kind of explanation is direct causation: X causes Y. When that fails, finding a common cause of X and Y will usually satisfy us. By comparison, colliders are too ethereal to satisfy our causal appetites.

Judea Pearl. 2018. The Book of Why. Chapter 6

什么是 collider?

ABC. This is the most fascinating junction, called a “collider.” Felix Elwert and Chris Winship have illustrated this junction using three features of Hollywood actors: TalentCelebrityBeauty. Here we are asserting that both talent and beauty contribute to an actor’s success, but beauty and talent are completely unrelated to one another in the general population.

We will now see that this collider pattern works in exactly the opposite way from chains or forks when we condition on the variable in the middle. If A and C are independent to begin with, conditioning on B will make them dependent. For example, if we look only at famous actors (in other words, we observe the variable Celebrity = 1), we will see a negative correlation between talent and beauty: finding out that a celebrity is unattractive increases our belief that he or she is talented.

This negative correlation is sometimes called collider bias or the “explain-away” effect. For simplicity, suppose that you don’t need both talent and beauty to be a celebrity; one is sufficient. Then if Celebrity A is a particularly good actor, that “explains away” his success, and he doesn’t need to be any more beautiful than the average person. On the other hand, if Celebrity B is a really bad actor, then the only way to explain his success is his good looks. So, given the outcome Celebrity = 1, talent and beauty are inversely related—even though they are not related in the population as a whole. Even in a more realistic situation, where success is a complicated function of beauty and talent, the explain-away effect will still be present. This example is admittedly somewhat apocryphal, because beauty and talent are hard to measure objectively; nevertheless, collider bias is quite real, and we will see lots of examples in this book.

Judea Pearl. 2018. The Book of Why. Chapter 3

另外两个 collider 的例子:

Try this experiment: Flip two coins simultaneously one hundred times and write down the results only when at least one of them comes up heads. Looking at your table, which will probably contain roughly seventy-five entries, you will see that the outcomes of the two simultaneous coin flips are not independent. Every time Coin 1 landed tails, Coin 2 landed heads. How is this possible? Did the coins somehow communicate with each other at light speed? Of course not. In reality you conditioned on a collider by censoring all the tails-tails outcomes.

Judea Pearl. 2018. The Book of Why. Chapter 6

The correlation we observe is, in the purest and most literal sense, an illusion. Or perhaps even a delusion: that is, an illusion we brought upon ourselves by choosing which events to include in our data set and which to ignore. It is important to realize that we are not always conscious of making this choice, and this is one reason that collider bias can so easily trap the unwary. In the two-coin experiment, the choice was conscious: I told you not to record the trials with two tails. But on plenty of occasions we aren’t aware of making the choice, or the choice is made for us.

The distorting prism of colliders is just as prevalent in everyday life. As Jordan Ellenberg asks in How Not to Be Wrong, have you ever noticed that, among the people you date, the attractive ones tend to be jerks? Instead of constructing elaborate psychosocial theories, consider a simpler explanation. Your choice of people to date depends on two factors: attractiveness and personality. You’ll take a chance on dating a mean attractive person or a nice unattractive person, and certainly a nice attractive person, but not a mean unattractive person. It’s the same as the two-coin example, when you censored tails-tails outcomes. This creates a spurious negative correlation between attractiveness and personality. The sad truth is that unattractive people are just as mean as attractive people—but you’ll never realize it, because you’ll never date somebody who is both mean and unattractive.

Judea Pearl. 2018. The Book of Why. Chapter 6

在控制变量的时候,一定不要控制 collider,因为:

[I]n a collider, ABC, exactly the opposite rules hold. The variables A and C start out independent, so that information about A tells you nothing about C. But if you control for B, then information starts flowing through the “pipe,” due to the explain-away effect.

Judea Pearl. 2018. The Book of Why. Chapter 4

The Science of Well-Being

好几年没有在 Coursera 上听课了。今天是偶然的机会,我在重新听「好和弦」讲流行抒情乐钢琴伴奏之后,又去这个视频里的主唱 JR 的 YouTube 频道看到他在三天前更新的视频介绍了这个耶鲁大学最受欢迎的课程The Science of Well-Being, by Laurie Santos

以下摘自《纽约时报》今年 1 月底的报道:

Students have long requested that Yale offer a course on positive psychology, according to Woo-Kyoung Ahn, director of undergraduate studies in psychology, who said she was “blown away” by Dr. Santos’s proposal for the class.

本科生心理研究主任 Woo-Kyoung Ahn 表示,长期以来,学生们一直要求耶鲁开设一门积极心理学课程。她说,桑托斯博士提出开设这门课程时,她「特别高兴」。

Administrators like Dr. Ahn expected significant enrollment for the class, but none anticipated it to be quite so large. Psychology and the Good Life, with 1,182 undergraduates currently enrolled, stands as the most popular course in Yale’s 316-year history. The previous record-holder — Psychology and the Law — was offered in 1992 and had about 1,050 students, according to Marvin Chun, the Yale College dean. Most large lectures at Yale don’t exceed 600.

安博士等管理人员预计这门课的选修人数会很多,但谁也没预料到会这么多。「心理学与美好生活」这门课目前有 1182 名本科生选修,成为耶鲁大学 316 年历史上最受欢迎的课程。耶鲁学院的院长 Marvin Chun 表示,此前的纪录保持者是 1992 年推出的「心理学和法律」课程,约有 1050 名学生选修。耶鲁的大多数大型课程的选修人数都不超过 600 人。

Yale’s Most Popular Class Ever: Happiness
耶鲁史上最受欢迎课程:快乐

Google 了一下发现这门课已经上线 Coursera(《纽约时报》今年 1 月底报道这门课的时候还只是说很快就会上线)。最近几年觉得国内上 Coursera 的网络状况真的不太好,当然我也不是随时都在测试,毕竟试过几次感觉很糟糕之后就不会太有动力去听课了。但今天的网络效果很好,不知道是不是最近用了另一家代理服务……

我自己对积极心理学(positive psychology)一直比较感兴趣,但也有好几年没有继续阅读这方面的内容了,希望这门课能带给我新的收获吧,积极心理学对个人幸福感的研究在我的哲学里是一块非常重要的基础内容。

附一封 Santos 老师的欢迎信:

Dear Learner,

Congratulations on taking part in this journey! Over the next several weeks, we’ll explore what new results in psychological science teach us about how to be happier, how to feel less stressed, and how to flourish more. We’ll then have a chance to put these scientific findings into practice by building the sorts of habits that will allow us to live a happier and more fulfilling life.

In Spring 2018, I taught “Psychology and the Good Life” for the first time. I created this Yale course because I was worried about the levels of student depression, anxiety, and stress that I was seeing as a Professor and Head of College at Yale. I originally developed this course to teach Yale students how the science of psychology can provide important hints about how to make wiser choices and how to live a life that’s happier and more fulfilling. Since I’m not an expert on positive psychology, I began by learning more about this topic, diving into the work of pioneering scientists like Martin SeligmanEd DienerBarbara FredricksonSonja LyubomirskyMihaly CsikszentmihalyiDaniel GilbertRobert Emmons, and others. I also learned more about work in social psychology and behavior change, including work by scholars such as Liz DunnMike NortonNick EpleyGabriele Oettingen, and others. The Yale course was my attempt at synthesizing work in positive psychology along with the science of behavior change. My goal was to present these scientific findings in a way that made it clear how this science could be applied in people’s daily lives.

When I first developed the class, I had no idea it would become the most popular class ever taught at Yale University. The Yale class was featured in both the national and international news media, and I was flooded with requests from people around the world to find a way to share the content of this Yale class more broadly.

This Coursera class is an attempt to do just that. My goal is to share the insights from that popular Yale class with learners far beyond Yale. To make the lectures feel more intimate, we filmed at my home in one of Yale’s residential colleges with a small group of Yale students in the audience. I hope you’ll enjoy this more personal format, which allows you to hear the sorts of questions Yale students had about the material and how they applied the science in their daily lives. We understand that many of you taking the course are not currently college students, but we hope you see yourselves as though you are part of this virtual classroom.

During this course, you’ll have the opportunity to enhance your own well-being by implementing a few simple research-based methods to your own life.

I am thrilled to share this information with a wider audience. As you go through the lessons please share your feedback with the course team! You can direct item-specific feedback via content flags and general course feedback in the Discussion Forums or in the post-course survey when you complete the course.

Sincerely,
Laurie

再说哲学与哲学史

这是一篇 5 年前写下的留在知乎草稿箱里的文章(估计当时我还想继续往下写几个部分但中途放弃了)。突然翻到了之后通读了一遍,觉得还行,就发在这里,只字未改。

顺带一说,当年我们读书的时候中文哲学书里少有不是哲学史的正经(或者说适合给专业的大一新生看的)哲学入门读物,比较有名的大概就是所罗门的《大问题》。最近新出的几个译作感觉都挺不错的,比如下面两本。

  • K. A. Appiah《想透彻》(Thinking it Through)
  • T. Schick, L. Vaughn《做哲学》(Doing Philosophy)

原文如下:

(一)

同样这个话题我在两三年前就写过一段文字,也就是刚刚出版的《另一种哲学》里第一章的其中一个小节「哲学与哲学史」。但今天我又想重新写一下这个话题。

促使我重新讨论这个话题的契机有两个:

第一个契机是最近一年多我才知道有很多所谓的民间哲学家(没有接受过足够专业熏陶的哲学写作爱好者)。他们可能只是对马哲教科书的某些概念有兴趣,也可能是看了几本哲学读物,还可能是结合了其他学科的一些东西,很投入地写了自己的「哲学」作品、「哲学」体系,并找到出版社、期刊或是直接找到某位哲学教授希望得到认可、推荐、发表、出版。但这些文章大多数不知所云,就跟理科生很厌恶的民科言论一样。

我自己也看过少量的这类作品。有的是不知所云的陈词滥调,满篇可见一些平常人容易接触到的哲学概念名词;有的是写得太抽象,我不知道他想表达什么;有的是行文逻辑太牵强,我不明白他的前一句和后一句是怎么串起来的。总的来说这类作品似乎更像自己沉浸其中、享受其中的文字而不像是写给别人看的。因为这类文字通常并不好读,所以我也得承认我的印象只是很浅薄的第一印象……

我一位老师常常收到这样的东西(他的原话是「非常多」)。他在课堂上说:这些人没有接受哲学史的训练,所以写不出真正的哲学作品;只有先照着前人说话,才能接着前人继续说下去。换句话说,他认为只有首先学过哲学史,才有可能做出自己的哲学成果。最近很流行的一句据说是杨绛给某位青年的回信里的话「你的问题主要在于读书不多而想得太多」也表达着类似的意思。《论语》里的「思而不学则殆」也常被引用来指责这些人。

另一个契机是最近又看到哲学到底应该怎样入门的争论。是不是只有读了哲学史才算真正入了门?直接面对哲学问题但没有哲学史背景会不会遇到很大困难甚至误入歧途?……

(二)

这两个契机都直接涉及哲学与哲学史的关系问题,但前一个主要「写哲学」的问题,后一个主要是「读哲学」的问题。

我对写哲学的问题跟我老师的看法不同。我并不认为那些「民哲」写的东西不知所云是因为他们没有读过哲学史。他们写不出好的作品最直接的原因是他们「还没有清晰地思考问题」。他们主要热衷的可能仅仅是玩弄概念游戏,并且是以「和专业内很不一样的方式」在玩。他们自己对那些概念可能也没有明确的辨析,而他们使用这些概念想表达的意思与专业内对这个概念的理解又相去甚远。

为什么我不认为这些问题的源头在于是否读过哲学史,或进一步说,学好哲学史呢?因为我并不认为读过哲学史的科班出身的学生、学者就能清晰地写出「自己的」思考(而不仅仅是梳理思想史)。这不是一个自然而然的过渡:不是说你学好了哲学史,就有能力写自己的哲学思考。学好哲学史只是让你不会再用「和专业内很不一样的方式」写东西,因而不会像民哲那样被学术圈、被专业内的人鄙视和排挤,但这并不意味着你就由此拥有了自己做哲学、用自己的方式思考哲学问题的能力。其实更有可能的是,哲学史的工作做多了以后,你就再也不知道「自己的思想」是什么,只会照着说,而不会接着说、自己说了。

非科班出身的民间哲学家想要写出好的东西不一定要去学哲学史,只要你能清晰地思考和表达自己感兴趣的哲学问题,就可以写出能被读懂、能被理解、能用来正常讨论的哲学文字。至于这些文字有多少学术上的价值则是后话,但只要这些文字是意义明确的思考,那么能让自己明白、让能读到这篇文字的少数几个人明白就已经有意义。只不过我会怀疑写这样的东西是不是还能让那些「爱好者」感兴趣。因为不少民哲给我的印象是「自 high」的,而自 high 到一定程度就写不出正常的、能让别人看懂的东西。

所以我认为哲学史既不是写哲学的充分条件(不是学好哲学史就能写自己的哲学思考),也不是写哲学的必要条件(不太接触哲学史而只是训练自己清晰思考和表达的能力也可以写自己的哲学思考)。但是就对外人的建议来说,去读哲学史,去了解历史上的哲学家的思想和作品,最好再有专业人士的指导可能是避免误入歧途最稳妥的办法。

一道逻辑入门考题

前几天,看到有人分享微信公众号「短史记」上的一篇文章「语文教材里的四大论证方法逻辑混乱,是有害的」,这四种论证方法好像中学时代还真的学过,虽然记得不是太清了。受这篇文章启发,我编了一道自认为比通常逻辑考试的题目更有意义的试题。

「舜发于畎亩之中,傅说举于版筑之闲,胶鬲举于鱼盐之中,管夷吾举于士,孙叔敖举于海,百里奚举于市。」结合历史人物背景,以下结论可以由上句推出的是:
(不定项选择)

A. 大人物飞黄腾达之前都是小人物。
B. 田野、市井之地也能出人才。
C. 天将降大任于是人也,必先苦其心志,劳其筋骨。
D. 王侯将相未必出身贵胄。

那篇文章讲到,孟子在这里的论证方式站不住脚,举了几个例子,他们以前是小人物,后来成就了一番大事业,所以天将降大任于是人也,「必先」如何如何。但其实孟子能举出这些例子,反对者也能举出很多小人物没有成就大事业的例子,反对者也能举出成就了大事业的人不少是天生贵胄,并没有经过孟子说的这些苦难。所以这种举例论证,或者说过于简单的归纳法,其实论证力度非常低。

但是,这些论据是不是什么都证明不了呢?我们似乎还是能感受到这些例子能够证明些什么。于是,我想出了这几个选项。

A. 大人物飞黄腾达之前都是小人物——这几个例子无法证明「都是」,只能证明「有的是」。
B. 田野、市井之地也能出人才——这一条可以证明,要证明「能」出,只需要举一个例子就能证明。
C. 如前所说,不能证明「必先」如何如何,「必先」的意思是「没有一个不是」,但举出了几个例子,还不能证明「没有一个不是」。
D. 王侯将相未必出身贵胄——这一条也可以证明,只要举出一个反例,就能证明「未必」。

所以我的答案是 B D。也就是说讲出百里奚那堆例子,只能用来告诉别人,你现在是小人物也没关系的,你看谁谁谁以前也只是在田野市井之地,后来如何如何了,并不是一定要出身贵胄才有出息,所以你还是有机会的,不要放弃啊……之类的。

而这个推理过程用亚里士多德的传统逻辑就可以解决(也就是说不需要学习更复杂的现代符号逻辑),但是可能在我们的语文教育中并不重视这一点。我看到很多高考作文范文,用的论据经常也不能证明它想要证明的论点,但大家也不觉得这有什么问题——可能只有到了大学,正经写学术论文的时候,才会发现孟子这样的论证完全不过关。甚至可能很大一部分学生写论文的时候也没有接受这样的逻辑训练。

我们从前做过的考题,大多数是考察中心思想,主旨意思,问的是作者希望证明什么(语文考试),而不是考察这个论据本身可以证明什么(逻辑考试)。虽然我在题目里说了逻辑推出,可能也不会引起足够的注意。并且我们的教育中也很少会说孟子的论证是站不住脚的,所以看到孟子的原文一般都是正确答案,就会想到选 C。