|
|
|
|
我在高中時期就對社會學有興趣。一來是在讀過幾本討論倫理學的書後，我就了解到：「行為」之所以重要，是因為它涉及其他的人；二來是在讀過幾篇討論戊戌維新的文章後，我就了解到：社會是國家的基礎；要強國必須先改造社會。用社會學的術語來說：
現代化的國家建立在現代化了的社會上。
此外，大一或大二上了「社會學」；奧哈拉教授的風趣幽默，更加深了我對這個領域的興趣。這些都是在1980年以前，我讀書大多環繞著社會學議題的原因。馬克思之外，韋伯、涂爾榦的書我也讀了幾本。柏格、米爾斯、帕森斯等學者的思想我也略知一、二。我對政治和倫理的看法，都從社會學角度著眼的淵源在此。
我一直很想系統的談談我的「社會觀」，這是我遲遲沒有開這一欄的原因。但是蹉跎至今，大概沒什麼指望了。我和「社會學」的因緣就大略談到這裏。
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
「現代性」一直只是假議題？ - Benjamin Cain
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
除了「現代化」是富國強兵的捷徑外，我對「社會」和「社會演變」過程兩者都頗有興趣，所以我曾試圖了解「現代性」(該欄「9之6」第2.1小節)。一般而言，我支持「現代化」運動，以及接受「『現代(社會)』有其獨特性質」的理論。
我不同意拉圖爾博士的觀點；對下文作者肯恩博士批評他思想的某些論點也有所質疑(1)；刊出後者大作是因為：
1) 有段時間沒看到討論「現代性」議題的論文。
2) 介紹另類觀點；此處請參考：Bruno Latour(此超連結需付費)。
附註：
1. 不過，我「人工概念」的思考邏輯(該欄開欄文第0.1小節)，跟他下面這段話相通：“But the word “natural” has dozens of dictionary meanings. In a more specific sense, natural is opposed to what’s artificial, in which case “natural” is synonymous with “wild,” meaning something that isn’t intelligently or morally guided.” (下文中他還有和這段話類似的其它論點。)
Has Modernity Always Been Just a Sham?
Bruno Latour’s critique of the distinction between society and nature
Benjamin Cain, 01/07/26
When we act as consumers, participating in an extractive lifestyle that we know threatens the planet’s ability to support life, we likely presuppose that we deserve these short-term benefits because we belong to the “modern” order.
We assume we deserve to have a smorgasbord of products to choose from on Amazon and social media, and in the supermarket.
Implicitly, we think of ourselves as “modern,” even if we don’t know what that word means. We assume that rich, technologically advanced countries are doing something right that ancient civilizations couldn’t have hoped to do. It’s not just that we know more and have more advanced technologies. Our societies deal properly with nature since we recognize it for what it is. As Martin Heidegger said, we view nature as a “standing reserve,” a series of raw materials we can exploit with scientific know-how.
Again, this is largely implicit for most of us. Superficially, many of us still speak of an overseeing deity who will punish amoral greed. But our acquisitive lifestyles tell a different story, and talk is cheap.
But Bruno Latour, the late French philosopher and anthropologist, said that modernity has all along been a sham. As one of his book’s titles boldly declares, We Have Never Been Modern. Specifically, he says in that book from 1991 that the dichotomy between society and nature, or subject and object, is bogus and unsustainable.
Early modern philosophers in Europe drew these dichotomies to promote institutions like science, capitalism, and democracy. As Latour says, “the very notion of culture is an artifact created by bracketing Nature off. Cultures — different or universal — do not exist, any more than Nature does. There are only natures-cultures, and these offer the only possible basis for comparison.”
Instead of two substantively different things, Nature and Society, there’s what Latour calls a “middle kingdom” of hybrids, things that are partly natural and partly artificial. These hybrids destabilize modern dualistic ideology. Here’s Latour’s crucial objection to modernism:
So long as Nature was remote and under control, it still vaguely resembled the constitutional pole of tradition, and science could still be seen as a mere intermediary to uncover it. Nature seemed to be held in reserve, transcendent, inexhaustible, distant enough. But where are we to classify the ozone hole story, or global warming or deforestation? Where are we to put these hybrids? Are they human? Human because they are our work. Are they natural? Natural because they are not our doing. Are they local or global? Both. As for the human masses that have been made to multiply as a result of the virtues and vices of medicine and economics, they are no easier to situate. In what world are these multitudes to be housed? Are we in the realm of biology, sociology, natural history, ethics, sociobiology? This is our own doing, yet the laws of demography and economics are infinitely beyond us. Is the demographic time bomb local or global? Both. Thus, the two constitutional guarantees of the moderns — the universal laws of things, and the inalienable rights of subjects — can no longer be recognized either on the side of Nature or on the side of the Social. The destiny of the starving multitudes and the fate of our poor planet are connected by the same Gordian knot that no Alexander will ever again manage to sever.
Global warming and deforestation, for example, are supposed to be “hybrids” in that they can be considered as either social or natural, or as both together. We cause them, but so does nature. So we’ve never been modern in the dichotomous sense. That is, we’ve never been part of a progressive society that hasn’t also been natural. We’ve never been so separate from nature.
To clarify, Latour opposes so-called moderns from premoderns:
While the moderns insure themselves by not thinking at all about the consequences of their innovations for the social order, the premoderns — if we are to believe the anthropologists — dwell endlessly and obsessively on those connections between nature and culture. To put it crudely: those who think the most about hybrids circumscribe them as much as possible, whereas those who choose to ignore them by insulating them from any dangerous consequences develop them to the utmost. The premodems are all monists in the constitution of their nature-cultures.
Moreover, by saturating the mixes of divine, human and natural elements with concepts, the premoderns limit the practical expansion of these mixes. It is the impossibility of changing the social order without modifying the natural order — and vice versa — that has obliged the premoderns to exercise the greatest prudence. Every monster becomes visible and thinkable and explicitly poses serious problems for the social order, the cosmos, or divine laws…
Latour’s point here is that, ironically, by attempting to draw such a stark dichotomy between us and nature, modern societies generate hybrids that are bound to befuddle and threaten them. By contrast, prehistoric animists viewed everything as hybrid, as they personified nature, so their way of life was more stable.
Now, like much of Continental philosophy, Latour’s criticism of modernism turns out to be trivial. The high-flown language obfuscates the triviality, and we can get to the bottom of this with some basic epistemology.
Notice, to start with, that Latour’s talk of hybrids is easily parodied. Suppose I draw a distinction between going left and going right, and I take three steps to the left, followed by one step to the right. Am I presently standing on a leftward or a rightward point? Once again, it seems like both “left” and “right” apply to my movements. I crossed over into leftward territory with those first three steps, but then I started to go rightward. Do we need a third concept to mark this combination of properties? Or perhaps there’s no such thing as left or right?
Or take the distinction between war and peace. Suppose a war is raging between two countries, but in the midst of the carnage, a butterfly sits lazily on a flower. Does that bit of peace obviate the talk of war? Is there really no difference between war and peace because of that “hybrid” condition?
What we need to understand is how all concepts work. Concepts are models that necessarily simplify their subject matter. As they say in the special sciences, our generalizations are typically “ceteris paribus,” (「其他條件不變」或「假設其他條件相同」) which means that we simplify, ignoring some conflicting details or presuming that the situation aligns with our idealization because the conflicting data are negligible or irrelevant for our purposes.
For instance, our folk physics assumes terrestrial conditions, such as Earth’s gravity level. In that context, we don’t mean to be talking about everything all at once, but only the conditions that are relevant to our interests, such as those that pertain to life for humans on Earth. In watching a baseball game, we speak of how hitters run around the bases, but that concept of running wouldn’t apply to outer space. So, in using that concept, we ignore the existence of extraterrestrial conditions that would preclude the act of running.
Or in speaking about the difference between war and peace, we don’t mean that absolutely everything must be at war or at peace. We may emphasize a war between two armies and ignore the fact that those hostilities might not affect some animals or civilians in the area.
Now, however grandiosely early modernists may have spoken in promoting their break from medieval norms, the distinction between society and nature should be deemed just as flexible rather than absolute. If we insist on an absolute distinction, this amounts to an emotional expression. We’re saying the two things are absolutely, necessarily opposed under all possible conditions because that’s how we feel about the matter. Of course, we can’t know the two things are so opposed because we’re not omniscient and we haven’t tested their relation under all possible conditions.
Again, the pragmatic context of human knowledge-gathering is such that we end up talking only about certain conditions, namely the ones that are relevant to our interests, the intended meanings of the concepts, and the background constraints on how terrestrial minds can acquire knowledge.
So, let’s return to Latour’s hybrids. Does the intermixing of society and nature in something like global warming mean there’s no important difference between society and nature? No, that would be a silly inference. What Latour can say is that there’s no absolute difference between them. That is, there’s no such thing as a society that isn’t in any respect also natural, and perhaps there’s nothing natural that isn’t at least potentially or metaphorically social.
The very same point applies to every single concept that’s ever entered a human head, and to every generalization that’s ever been uttered on this planet. Absolutes are displays of grandstanding. All our concepts have exceptions because they simplify their subject matter, and we simplify because no one can comprehend all the data. When the exceptions begin to overwhelm what we wish to talk about, we may find we have to update our concepts.
Suppose we want to explain why global warming is happening. How could we do so without appealing to the distinction between society and nature? The planet periodically warms on its own, but scientists say that the present warming is due to human activities. Specifically, the culprit is the Anthropocene, the downside of the explosion of modern progress. It’s not as if people in the Stone Age could have affected the Earth’s temperature.
What’s the relevant difference between prehistoric people who couldn’t have affected the climate, and twenty-first-century people who could? Again, can we readily answer that question without at least presupposing the distinction between society and nature? I think not.
To me, the relevant difference is simple. Twenty-first-century people have advanced societies, meaning Promethean ones that are anti-natural in that they seek to terraform and domesticate nature’s wildness, to impose intelligently designed cultures, technologies, and civilizations.
So, the deeper dichotomy is between artificiality and wildness. According to philosophical naturalists, everything is natural in that everything has a physical foundation. But the word “natural” has dozens of dictionary meanings. In a more specific sense, natural is opposed to what’s artificial, in which case “natural” is synonymous with “wild,” meaning something that isn’t intelligently or morally guided.
If we want to know whether there’s a substantive difference between nature (in the sense of wildness) and society (in the sense of an artificially governed domain), we might consider spending some time in the wilderness without any artificial advantages and seeing how far we get before we crawl back to civility.
I take it that Latour lived mainly in Paris, France, one of the most culturally sophisticated places on the planet. What would have happened if Latour began to bark like a wild dog on the streets of Paris? What if he lost all sense of civil propriety and forgot about the obvious difference between society and nature (civility and wildness)? How long would he have roamed the cafés and boulevards, naked, freely urinating, and smelling the crotches of passersby, before he’d have been captured and carted off to a mental hospital?
That’s the difference between society and nature. That’s the cutting edge of the conflict. The fact that there are “hybrids” or exceptions isn’t surprising since all concepts are just models, not absolutes. But just because a distinction isn’t absolute doesn’t mean the distinction makes no difference. If we didn’t draw any distinctions, we’d hardly get by in life. We must generalize even if, in doing so, we sometimes discriminate against exceptions. We err on the side of caution because that’s the cost of doing business in mortal bodies.
Civilized human societies are at odds with nature, and nature’s neutrality is implicitly at odds with human egoism and our vain ambitions. We aim to humanize as much of nature as we can, and we enforce laws so that our cultivated domains aren’t wild and dictated purely by chance and nature’s impersonality and amorality. Civilized people are opposed to wildness, and that’s the basis of a viable, limited (and thus meaningful) distinction between society and nature.
Further reading
* Why We Should Reject the Conceit of “Objective Truth”
* Understanding the Facts Makes All Knowledge Partly Subjective
* There is No Scientific Understanding of Nature
* Is Science Neutral or Imperialistic Towards Nature?
Written by Benjamin Cain
Ph.D. in philosophy/Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. / https://benjamincain.substack.com/https://ko-fi.com/benjamincain/ benjamincain8@gmailDOTcom
Published in Philosophy Today
Philosophy Today is dedicated to current philosophy, logic, and thought.
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
美國Z世代青年的人生取向 -- Lydia O'Connor
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
此貼文的中譯標題與下文原標題的意旨不符。我對美國校園的右翼組織沒有興趣；轉載下文的目的是因為：它報導了中譯標題所指的訊息，提供給各位參考。
歡迎大家轉貼關於兩岸青年「人生取向」的相關報導。
索引：
Gen Z (generation Z)：Z世代 泛指1990年代末至2010年代初期(約1997-2012年)出生的一代人，
millennials：千禧世代 通常指約在1981年至1996年之間出生的人，也被稱為Y世代(Generation Y)
西方世界的主要世代 (按出生年份)
* 失落的一代(1883年 -- 1900年)
* 最偉大的一代(1901年 -- 1927年)
* 沉默的一代(1928年 -- 1945年)
* 嬰兒潮世代(1946年 -- 1964年)
* X世代(1965年 -- 1980年)
* Y世代(千禧世代)(1981年 -- 1996年)
* Z世代(1997年 -- 2012年)
* 阿法世代(2013年 -- 2024年)
* 貝塔世代(2025年至今，擬議)
Turning Point USA Has An Erika Kirk Problem
Lydia O'Connor, 12/20/25
A week after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, Turning Point USA’s chief operating officer made a prediction.
“Charlie Kirk came and converted the young men. Erika Kirk is coming to convert the young women,” Tyler Bowyer wrote on X. It raked in nearly 100,000 likes and has been reposted close to 9,000 times.
That forecast accompanied the news that Erika Kirk would assume her late husband’s role as CEO and chair of his conservative nonprofit, a force on college campuses credited with luring so many Gen Z men to far-right politics in an election that sent President Donald Trump back to the White House.
Headlines pondering the possibility ensued. “In Erika Kirk, conservative women see the future,” CNN wrote the next day. “Republicans hope Erika Kirk can bring more young women into the party,” NBC News ran weeks later. They featured interviews with young conservative women and Republican strategists ― many of them suggesting Turning Point could use Erika Kirk as a conduit to reach Gen Z women.
Turning Point USA didn’t respond when asked if it had seen more interest from young women since Erika Kirk took over. It also did not respond to requests for an interview with her.
The reality, experts in the young voting bloc say, is that young women really aren’t buying the narrative that Erika Kirk has been peddling: that they’d be happier leaving their careers behind, getting married young, having children and “submitting to their husbands.
“I certainly think that Erica Kirk could be a strong leader, bringing in more young women than, perhaps, have been a part of the Turning Point movement to date, but I don’t suspect we’re going to see a massive shift right amongst young women anytime soon,” said Rachel Janfaza, founder of the Gen Z research and strategy firm The Up and Up.
Dr. Corey Seemiller, a generational expert who’s written six books about Gen Z, agreed, saying she doesn’t expect Erika Kirk to be some kind of “massive draw” to young women, especially “if she continues to put forth the same message that Charlie Kirk did.”
“The messaging that’s resonating with Gen Z women is really different than the messaging that’s resonated with Gen Z men,” she noted, saying the demographic is shaping up to have one of the biggest political gender divides in generations.
That’s evident from recent elections. In 2024, young women ages 18-29 chose then-Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by an 18-point margin. Men in that age group swung significantly the other way, choosing Trump over Harris by a 14-point margin.
Key to Charlie Kirk’s success luring young men to MAGA was his “shock appeal,” Seemiller said. “Charlie Kirk didn’t hold back, and young men were like, ‘Yes, finally, someone’s saying something for me. He’s speaking my language.’”
“Can Erica Kirk be that same thing?” she asked. “I don’t think women are looking for that.”
What Gen Z women actually care about
Across the political spectrum, Gen Z women have very different feelings about marriage, children and metrics for success than both Erika Kirk and their male counterparts do.
“This idea of finding that partner because you don’t want to go through life solo is definitely not something women are embracing in bulk, by any stretch,” Seemiller said of Gen Z women.
Recent data she’s gathered showed that while 23% of Gen Z men said they wanted to get married to avoid being alone, just 13% of women in that age group said the same.
And among members of Gen Z who said they don’t want to get married, 56% of women cited a desire to be independent, compared to just 41% of men, her data showed. Among that group, 24% of women cited an opposition to combining finances, while just 17% of men said the same.
“We’re not seeing any indicators that these women are leaning on these ‘head of household’ men who would take care of them financially,” Seemiller observed.
Even within Turning Point’s target demographic of young, right-leaning voters, the differences in men and women’s priorities are astounding ― especially when it comes to one of the Kirks’ biggest mandates: have children.
In September, an NBC News poll that broke down Gen Z’s priorities by both *** and Trump vs. Harris, voters found that while Gen Z men who voted for Trump ranked having children as their No. 1 marker of success, their female counterparts ranked it sixth among their 13 choices. And while those men ranked being married fourth, those female Trump voters ranked it ninth.
In another twist, Gen Z women who voted for Trump ranked achieving financial independence higher than both groups of men and female Harris voters, placing it at No. 1.
The findings track with what Janfaza hears in the gatherings she holds with young voters.
“I hear in my listening sessions with Gen Z women a strong focus on financial stability and financial freedom as the top thing that they’re prioritizing when they think about metrics for success in their future,” she said.
It doesn’t seem like Erika Kirk grasps any of that. In a recent interview, she appeared utterly perplexed that so many young women voted for New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a candidate who ran on affordability and America’s cost-of-living crisis. In remarks that were widely panned on social media, she called the Democrat’s victory “so ironic and so interesting” and mused that young women were asking things of their government they should be seeking from a marriage.
“What I don’t want to have happen is women, young women, in the city look to the government as a solution,” she said. “To put off having a family or a marriage, because you’re relying on the government to support you, instead of being united with a husband, where you can support yourself and your husband can support [you], and you guys can all combine together.”
Authenticity matters to young people -- a lot
There’s an elephant in the room working against Erika Kirk.
Before becoming the CEO of a nonprofit with tens of millions of dollars in assets and making multiple media appearances a week, Erika Kirk lectured young women on the importance of being a “helpmate” to their husbands instead of focusing on their own careers.
“Your husband has to be the one that goes out into the world and builds and battles and comes home. Conquers,” she said in an April 2025 episode of “The Charlie Kirk Show” while sitting next to her husband. “[He] comes home and is like, ‘This is my nest egg, this is what I worked so hard for,’ and the wife is like, ‘Welcome home, babe, whatever you need, we’re here.’”
Even before becoming CEO, she was a businesswoman with a podcast, a clothing line and multiple degrees.
During an appearance onstage at a Turning Point USA event over the summer, she cautioned it wasn’t “ideal” to get married after 30 and that it’s “not probably the best statistical-odd position.”
Erika Kirk was 32 when she married Charlie Kirk, who was five years her junior.
That’s a hypocrisy that may not jive with young women or men.
“Young people as a whole, especially Gen Z, are about authenticity,” Leela Strong, the director of Tufts’ Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, a research organization focused on youth civic engagement, told HuffPost.
“They want candidates and figureheads who can speak to substantive issues,” who understand “those issues they’ve personally experienced,” she said.
Seemiller agreed, saying the weight Gen Z gives to authenticity from leaders is one of the “biggest findings” about the age group.
Janfaza emphasized the same: “Anyone looking to connect with Gen Z needs to be real and clear about their day-to-day, how they spend their time and their own priorities.”
Young women are also experiencing the creep of “tradwife” content on social media from creators “making millions of dollars by encouraging people to not make money,” Seemiller observed, and it’s not really landing with them.
“Gen Z women are seeing right through that,” she said.
She expects Turning Point USA will eventually attempt to package the incongruence.
“It’ll be spun to be that she believes in this so much that she has to get other people to do it,” Seemiller said. Or, she predicted, they will emphasize her husband’s death, pushing a narrative that “she wouldn’t have stepped up, but because her husband died, she feels a calling to keep the mission going.”
Erika Kirk hasn’t addressed the hypocrisy criticisms. But at a recent CBS town hall appearance, she asserted her authenticity.
“We’re fully transparent,” she said when talking about her decision to give a live statement following Charlie Kirk’s shooting.
“What you see,” she promised, “is what you get.”
Read the original on HuffPost
Political Updates
Even Fox News Host Can't Get Behind Trump’s ‘Trolling’ Walk Of Fame
Erika Kirk Reveals A Specific Hope She Prayed For When Charlie Kirk Was Killed
Erika Kirk Makes Her 2028 Presidential Endorsement -- And It's Raising Eyebrows
Gavin Newsom Compares Trump To Ruthless Tyrant From Film -- And It's A Hoot
Republicans Oppose Ground Troops In Venezuela As Trump Threatens War
We Are Living Through The Worst Measles Outbreak In 30 Years -- But RFK Jr. Won't Tell You That
Erika Kirk Frets That Women In New York Aren't 'United With A Husband'
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
境由心生？八風不動？--Robin Cote
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文的意旨跟《生活的陰暗面》一文相近(本欄上一篇)。我自然不敢妄論羅馬大哲奧瑞尼亞斯的箴言。標題的中譯所用「境由心生」和「八風不動」兩詞源於佛家思想；中文標題的問號僅僅表示：我不完全苟同寇特先生的「詮釋」和申論。相關愚見請參看拙作《《生活的陰暗面》討論》(尚未完成)。
The Dangerous Lie About Control Marcus Aurelius Tried to Warn You About
why our obsession with control leaves us more broken than secure
Robin Cote, 09/12/25
We walk around trying to hold everything together such as:
* Our lives
* Our relationships
* Our image
As if we’re in control of it all.
But suddenly it all falls apart like our jobs, the love, the plan. We’re left looking at the pieces, wondering what went wrong.
Marcus Aurelius would say: Nothing went wrong. You just believed a lie. The lie that you were ever in control to begin with. Here are 7 quotes that cut the delusion in half and force you to face reality.
1. “You have power over your mind — not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”
This one hurts. Because we want to control outcomes. We obsess over how people react to us, how our life looks, how everything unfolds.
And when it doesn’t go the way we planned? We fall apart. But Marcus says: You never had that power.
You only ever had control over how you respond, what you think, and where you place your attention. And even that? Takes practice.
Most of us don’t even have control over our own minds — our thoughts run wild, our fears hijack us, and our ego drives the car.
2. “Choose not to be harmed — and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed — and you haven’t been.”
Although it sounds cold, but there’s something freeing in it. People will always disappoint you like:
* They’ll betray
* They’ll ignore
* They’ll lie
* They’ll cheat
But what Marcus is pointing to is this: You decide what story you tell yourself about it.
You can carry that hurt around for years, let it define your identity, or… you can see it, feel it, and let it pass.
Easier said than done? Of course…
But the alternative is giving away your power — letting every outside hit become your internal identity.
3. “It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.”
Most people live their lives without thinking about it..
Waiting for the right time, saving up joy for later, thinking “once I fix everything, then I’ll be happy.”
But that’s not living, that’s waiting and you’ll wait forever — because life will never fully cooperate with your timeline.
You’re not scared of dying but you’re scared of realizing you never actually lived. That’s the real fear and that’s what Marcus is calling out.
4. “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it — and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.”
How many times have you suffered because you built a story around what happened? Like:
* It wasn’t just a breakup
* It was rejection, (proof you’re unlovable)
* It wasn’t just a job loss
* It was failure, shame
We layer meaning on top of meaning until we’re buried under it. Marcus is saying: Strip that away.
You can choose how much weight to give it. You can look at it differently. And that shift? That’s what frees you.
5. “How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life.”
You are stunned and ask yourself, “How could this happen?” after losing someone, being betrayed, or having a plan go wrong.
But Marcus lived through plague, war, betrayal and still knew: Nothing is guaranteed, everything is temporary.
Being surprised by chaos is like being surprised by weather. It’s going to come, you just forgot.
This is not pessimism; it is preparation. When you stop expecting stability, you stop falling apart every time the ground shakes.
6. “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.”
This is the one that hit me hardest. Every obstacle feels like the end. But Marcus is saying — that thing you hate? That’s the path.
You don’t grow by avoiding pain, you grow by walking through it like:
* The breakup that wrecked you — that’s where you learn boundaries.
* The rejection — that’s where you learn worth.
* The stuckness — that’s where you build discipline.
You thought the hard thing was in the way. Turns out, it is the way.
7. “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.”
You can read all the quotes, write all the to-do lists and have every intention to heal, change, grow.
But none of it matters unless you show up.
This line wakes me up because we get stuck in talking, planning, and thinking too much.
We convince ourselves that understanding something is the same as living it. But it’s not… Just be it. Now, messy, imperfect, trying. That’s the only thing that counts.
Final Thought:
Okay, let’s be real for a sec.
Most of us hold on to control because we’re scared, right? Scared of everything falling apart, scared of losing things or people. We’re scared of pain, or just things not going the way we want.
So, we end up trying to control everything. We stress about how people see us, we plan everything out, thinking that if we just work harder, love harder, or do everything “right,” life will give us what we want.
But that’s not how it works.
Life doesn’t owe us anything and honestly, we were never really in control to begin with. I know, that sounds kinda harsh, but here’s the thing it’s actually the key to feeling at peace.
Once you stop trying to control everything around you, you can focus on what’s actually in your power:
* How you respond when things go wrong.
* The story you tell yourself when someone hurts you.
* Whether you keep your integrity even when no one’s watching.
* Whether you choose to become bitter, or better.
You’ll never control what happens in life like, people will leave, things will fail, and life will hit you with stuff you didn’t see coming.
But even in those moments, you always have a choice:
* To fight reality, or face it.
* To play the victim, or grow through it.
* To ask “why me?” or use that energy to build something better.
Marcus Aurelius didn’t write all those wise things because his life was perfect. In fact, he wrote them because it wasn’t, and he still found peace. And that’s the point.
We’re not meant to control everything, we’re meant to get clarity and now, you’ve got it.
Written by Robin Cote
Hey, I’m Robin! I’m a psychology student sharing what I learn about the mind and behavior. Simple ideas that might help you understand yourself a bit more.
Published in ILLUMINATION
We curate & disseminate outstanding stories from diverse domains to create synergy. Apply: https://digitalmehmet.com & https://substackmastery.com Subscribe to content marketing strategy: https://drmehmetyildiz.substack.com/ External: https://illumination-curated.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
生活的陰暗面 -- Ross Akram
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
這篇文章的標題中有「人性」一詞；不過，我將它翻譯成「生活」。我沒有把此文放在「生活面面觀」討論版，而把它放在此欄。兩者的原因我會在此文的《討論》中說明。
The Dark Truth About Human Nature That You Weren’t Supposed To Know
Ross Akram, 10/18/25
It is everything we repress,
the envy we feel but never confess,
the anger we swallow instead of express,
and the selfishness we deny while pretending to be selfless.
We push it down because it doesn’t fit the image of who we think we are.
When you bury the shadow, it doesn’t disappear. It waits, it builds, and eventually it finds its way out. Think about it.
* Have you ever congratulated a friend on their success, smiling while deep down wishing it was you instead?
* Have you ever told someone, I’m fine, when in truth, you were boiling inside with resentment?
That quiet contradiction between what we show and what we feel, that is the shadow revealing itself.
We like to imagine that darkness belongs only to criminals, dictators, or villains in movies. But the truth of the matter is that the dark passenger lives in everyone.
And when we deny it, when we refuse to face it, we become its prisoner.
The shadow doesn’t only live in individuals. It lives in entire societies.
When large groups of people repress their darker impulses, those impulses return with even greater force.
History proves this. Entire nations, convinced of their own goodness, have committed acts of cruelty while believing they were on the side of morality.
This is why confronting the shadow isn’t optional. It’s essential.
If we refuse, we risk being controlled by it without even realizing it.
You may believe your life is shaped by circumstances, bad luck, or toxic people. But often it’s your own unacknowledged shadow pulling the strings, guiding your choices, fueling your fears, and sabotaging your growth.
1. You can see the shadow everywhere once you know how to look —
2. In the workplace, colleagues smile at each other while quietly competing, undermining, or celebrating each other’s failures.
3. In relationships, couples avoid conflict by saying, I’m fine, while bitterness festers in silence.
4. Online, people post smiling pictures while secretly comparing, envying, or hoping others stumble.
The shadow hides behind masks. It disguises itself as morality, as kindness, as good intentions. And the more we deny it, the more dangerous it becomes.
Shadow can be compared to a wild animal. If you pretend it isn’t there, it doesn’t vanish.
It stalks you from the dark. But if you turn toward it, if you face it, you can tame it.
So how do we confront the shadow?
The first step is recognition. Stop pretending and notice those uncomfortable feelings without judgment.
When envy shows up, admit it.
When anger rises, acknowledge it.
When pride surfaces, see it clearly.
The second step is integration. Instead of trying to destroy the shadow, learn to use its energy.
Envy, for example, can reveal what you truly desire. It can motivate you to grow.
Anger can become the fuel you need to set boundaries and protect what matters.
Fear can keep you prepared, alert, and resilient.
Shadow should be erased; it should be transformed. The dark side of human nature isn’t something to fear; it’s something to understand. Because when you face it, you stop being ruled by it.
Most people bury their shadow, hide from it, and in doing so, they become controlled by it in secret.
But those who confront it, those who integrate it, transform their lives.
So the question is, are you willing to see your shadow, or will you let it rule you from the dark?
If this opened your eyes, don’t stop here. The journey of self-discovery never ends. It’s these hidden truths about psychology, philosophy, and human behavior that can change the way you live.
Thank you so much for reading my story till the very end. If you like my writing, you can support me by Buying Me A Coffee
If this message resonates with you, follow Metacognition to reclaim your strength in a world full of illusions.
Written by Ross Akram
MS in Phytochemistry. 3S of my life: Science, Sports, and Spirituality.
Published in Metacognition
Metacognition is an unbiased analysis of one’s own thoughts.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
從「兒時經驗」談台、美社會的差異
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
本部落格生活面面觀區轉載關於「修身」和「關係」的幾欄(「人際關係篇」、「自我提升篇、「擺正觀念篇」等)，都是翻譯而來。有幾篇觸及到個性或習慣，而又引用心理學為根據的文章，常常強調「成長」或「兒時」經驗(如此欄2025/07/22貼文)。內容描述情境和提供建議，有時可能跟台灣社會不怎麼相關。我曾兩、三次提到「文化」因素(此欄2025/07/05貼文)；現在略加申述。
台、美社會一個和「文化」相關的顯著差異在「家庭」面向。我不是社會系出身，並沒有專業知識；以下純屬閒聊。
一方面台灣屬於中華文化圈；不論「醬缸」一詞是否批判過當，此處對家庭倫理的重視和灌輸遠遠超過美國，殆無疑義。另一方面，台灣社會到了1960年代中期以後，才全面加速進入工、商業社會；許多對家庭和親子關係有負面作用的因素也才開始顯現；如離婚率、雙親工作、因人際互動頻率導致的社會風氣開放等等。細節我就不一一列舉。時間上這比美國晚了近100年。從而，在台灣成長的青、少年，至少在「統計」上，比美國青、少年要幸運和健康很多。此處只舉一個例子：我在1980前後讀過一篇報導，作者說：根據問卷調查，美國女孩曾被家庭成員性侵的比例在10%左右。即使在艾米許這種保守和崇尚宗教倫理的社區，女孩被家庭成員性侵的問題也很嚴重。
根據「社會建構論」，我們的觀點、價值、個性、行為習慣等等，都是在成長期形塑而來。既然台、美社會在建構過程中有程度甚至本質上的差異，則本部落格所介紹有關態度、個性、或行為的文章，需要慎思、明辨後，再選擇性的納入參考。
|
|
《美國各地區居民性格分析》讀後
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
這篇文章雖然以美國人為討論對象(1本欄上一篇)，可以把它視為以「美國人」做標本的「社會現象研究」。所以我把這篇文章放在此欄；而不放在《美國123》。
作者並非專業社會學家；文中提及氣溫、地理、人口密度、經濟結構等因素對「性格」形成的「相關性」，很可能只是他的「感受」或「印象」。但是，我認為這個思路值得進一步探究，可以當做碩、博士的論文題目。在經過適當的問卷、抽樣等方法考察後，讓作者的「觀察」能得到一個有依據的論斷。
「地區」因素包括上面提到的氣溫和地理；從長遠時間看，兩者可能也影響到某些基因突變是否被「保留」(「遺傳」)下來。「基因」自然也會影響「性格」的形成，只是我們還沒有搞清楚兩者間的因果關係。
人的「性格」有一大半是「社會建構」的結果；家庭因素外，「地區性」的「次文化」在這個過程中，具有某種程度的「決定性」。如果說「文化」是「上層建築」，做為「下層建築」的「生產方式」和「生產關係」也就間接影響到一個人「性格」的形塑。
我在美國賓州費城住了三年，只是這段時間都在校園或寢室打混，跟「社會」沒什麼交集。也就談不上對美東居民有什麼了解。我在加州住了21年，時間夠長，身份不同；對美國西部「社會」自然有比較深入和廣泛的認識。以後有機會再回憶一下。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美國各地區居民性格分析 –-- Sean Kerman
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Understanding America’s Regional Personality Types
How place, nurture, and nature shape who we are.
Sean Kernan, 08/25/24
I lived across the United States prior to turning 18. It wasn’t bad for the first decade of my life, but around adolescence, the adjustment became quite difficult. In 1999, I moved from a small town in North Carolina to Coronado, California for high school, and was dumbstruck on the first day.
I saw same-sex couples holding hands and students with brightly dyed hair and expressive outfits. People’s sensibilities and sense of humor felt so foreign. The local lingo and accents were unfamiliar. Even the sports were different. We had a varsity surfing team. Our high school water polo team was more popular than our football team.
Author and researcher, Colin Woodard, suggests there are as many as 11 cultures within the United States, including the Deep South, Greater Appalachia, Tidewater, The Left Coast, the Midlands, and more. Recently, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge took this idea a step further, asking the fundamental question, “Do different places have different personalities?”
After sending thousands of surveys around the country, he discovered three regional trends in how people perceive and interact with the world. Friendliness was correlated to southern and midwestern states. Of note, the study doesn’t assert that people from outside those regions are universally mean, but it does echo the experience I had living in the south and seeing southern hospitality. Conversely, people living in western states were identified as “relaxed and creative”, which is partly driven by large populations in California, who work in entertainment, startups, and entrepreneurial fields. But the trend goes beyond that, to a cultural emphasis on creativity.
When I lived in Coronado, I was surprised by the huge art facilities and theater program that put on impressive plays each month. Many students were fantastic at painting, and had been doing it from an early age. Conversely, my school in North Carolina had one meager art room that people worked from. Few people went on to become artists.
The third and final cluster, the Northeast, was labeled as “temperamental and uninhibited”, which is partly driven by large populations living in dense cities. The experience of urbanization, and dealing with crowds, excess stimulation and squeezing onto subway cars — tends to put people more on edge. If you live in a city that was formerly a coal or factory town, your odds of being neurotic and skeptical are far higher. You will also tend to be less trusting of people. The effects of economic depression have an enormous impact on the psychology and culture of a region.
City living also shares traits with the west coast, and in particular, openness — which is a Big Five trait, that includes imagination, attentiveness to inner feelings, intellectual curiosity, adventurousness, challenging authority, and aesthetic sensitivity. It probably won’t surprise you that this trait tends to attract people to a left leaning ideology. Admittedly, it describes me. I’m a writer living in a city.
Countries with high levels of openness tend to promote democratic values. People who score high in orderliness, meaning they are by the rules and organized, tend to vote more conservative.
Why personalities cluster by region
People often migrate based on their beliefs and lifestyle. I live in Florida, but our Governor, Ron DeSantis, has often bragged about turning us into a red state. But it isn’t like he is converting people to his belief system. Liberals are moving out in droves, and conservatives are moving in.
Beyond politics, if you are someone who enjoys concerts, you might move to Nashville, or to a big city where concerts are more common. If you value outdoors and being active, Colorado might be an ideal home. These decisions, at scale, create clusters of personalities that shape regional psychology.
If you are a free-spirited type, a beach community will be more attractive. My hometown of Virginia Beach was a mish-mash in this regard. We lived in a southern state, on the border of a rural region of North Carolina. Our city was a combination of conservative orderly types, mixing with the skater and artsy folks of the beach community. We had the Neptune Festival with sand castle building competitions, and also monster truck rallies. Many times, I’ve seen surfers in the ocean wearing hunting and military board shorts.
This lived, physical, everyday experience in a place influences who you are. A study by Chinese researchers in the famed academic publication, Nature, found that people who live in areas where temperatures stay near 72 °F, tend to be more emotionally stable and easy going due to the comfort it provides.
Temperature affects how often people get sick, how much farming activity takes place, and how often you interact with others. And this plays out in ways you wouldn’t expect. The social thermoregulation theory posits that people seek social warmth in cold areas, finding that people in cold regions tend to have broader social networks.
A caveat to regional personality
There is still a strong nature and nurture component that shapes who you are. If both of your parents are neurotic and confrontational, there’s a good chance you’ll have a fiery streak that can come out when provoked. But then, if you grew up in a region where people are relaxed, that experience may have nudged some of that edge off. Who we are is not mutually exclusive to where we are.
And perhaps this is yet another reason to think deeply about where you want to live and why. Each step should be a correction for what is missing. I chose to stay here in Tampa for 13 years because I badly needed stability after my nomadic childhood. Yet, my partner and I are going through a bit of regional soul searching and toying with the idea of moving. We’re having ongoing discussions on the types of places we’d live and what it means for our lifestyle. She’s an upstate New York girl who shares my hatred for the cold. We don’t like some of the cultural issues we are finding here in the south, though I love the southern hospitality, beaches, and incredible weather.
Think through the life you want to live, the types of people you want to be around, and how the city you are scouting influences those things. And don’t forget people’s humanity. Living across the country taught me that, despite any personality or political differences, people appreciate confidence, kindness and a good sense of humor. Have fun, and stay open to people’s perspective and way of life, and I suspect you’ll do fine anywhere you land.
Sean Kernan I'm a former financial analyst turned writer out of sunny Tampa, Florida. I began writing eight years ago on the side and fell in love with the craft. My goal is to provide non-fiction story-driven content to help us live better and maximize our potential.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
