书名：爱的设计
副标题：卢梭与浪漫派
作者：[美] 阿兰·布鲁姆（Allan Bloom）
出版社：华夏出版社
ISBN：9787508090108
出版时间：2017
页数：323
定价：59.00
内容简介： 本书是阿兰·布鲁姆《爱与友谊》第一部分。在本书中，作者解读了卢梭和深受其影响的四位小说家——司汤达、奥斯汀、福楼拜、和托尔斯泰。 卢梭是爱的现代阐述者与倡导者，他发起了一场爱的运动——浪漫主义运动。这场伟大的运动立志要在孤立的布尔乔亚社会中为人的联合提供一个新基础。在本书中，卢梭与卢梭主义者们（Rousseauans）扮演了双重角色。他们是爱的伟大见证者，但他们运动的失败与19世纪末爱作为一个文学主题的垮台也是密切相关的。 阿兰·布鲁姆（1930—1992），出生于美国的犹太人，当代重要思想家、政治哲学家，才子型人物，曾师从列奥·施特劳斯、雷蒙·阿隆、亚历山大·柯耶夫等著名哲人，先后任教于多所世界一流大学。 布鲁姆的《走向封闭的美国精神》一出版即轰动全美国，长期高居畅销书排行榜榜首，并引起全国范围内关于教育和文化等问题的大辩论，一时间他本人也被视为美国保守主义的代表人物。 在作为一个公众人物之外，他也是一个严肃的学者，一个才华横溢的哲人。他的文字优美而深刻，令人一读难忘，是现代少见的兼具诗人和哲人气质的极具魅力的人物。 非常矛盾的心情。掺杂了洞见和偏见，两者的烈度几乎相等。非常值得逐句赞叹或吐槽，对于什么是“自然”，对于“神圣”、“高贵”和平庸的关系，对于人应当如何生活。不知道有没有小伙伴一起。 2019.05.10看完《爱欲的堕落》跟《卢梭》两篇。后面的篇目可以随小说慢慢跟上。一时半会儿难以抽绎出主旨，故先记下几点启发。首先是，借布鲁姆的论述，可以反观当下人们如何谈爱与性，想想婚姻市场里把完整的人分解并简化为性别年龄身高学历职业薪水户口的明码标价，想想ky正文和评论区常见的一些关键词如“自我保护”、“安全感”，想想网络和日常用语里，好比“撩”、“套路”、“跪舔（or舔狗）”、“有没有x生... 2019.05.10看完《爱欲的堕落》跟《卢梭》两篇。后面的篇目可以随小说慢慢跟上。一时半会儿难以抽绎出主旨，故先记下几点启发。首先是，借布鲁姆的论述，可以反观当下人们如何谈爱与性，想想婚姻市场里把完整的人分解并简化为性别年龄身高学历职业薪水户口的明码标价，想想ky正文和评论区常见的一些关键词如“自我保护”、“安全感”，想想网络和日常用语里，好比“撩”、“套路”、“跪舔（or舔狗）”、“有没有x生活”这些表述……哎。又想起之前看雨果，伽西莫多对爱斯梅拉达、笑面人与盲女，他们之间的爱，在我看来已经超越了一般意义上内涵干瘪的两性之爱，这大概也是为什么我觉得1988年音乐剧版《巴黎圣母院》增加了伽对爱的情欲部分，却导致了爱的层次的降低。另，原来“爱情”的可塑性包容性与延展性可以这么大的喔！⊙ω⊙ 很难不在读第一章时忿然无语，继续读下去反对夹杂着惊异，然后还不得不承认他挺深刻。读者没法用自己体认、作者鄙视的布尔乔亚反驳他，只能在他就某些文学事例（比如于连那个）得出结论时大笑三声。这种体系无论如何还是具有美感的。 主要看了前面的部分。古典—现代的对立是布鲁姆的基本立场。在现代状态下，爱欲被还原为生物本能的性欲，同时亦可被经济理性的算计所操控。在卢梭那里，性欲构成了从自然状态向社会状态的连续性过渡，让性欲升华为爱欲，因而性欲-爱欲的连续体有着保证共同体团结的政治力量。后面的就没怎么看了。有意思的一点是，在卢梭那里，布尔乔亚既非自然人，但也不是公民，这个观察倒是太犀利了。 关于阿兰·布鲁姆“爱的三部曲”（《爱的设计》《爱的戏剧》《爱的阶梯》）的笔记梳理。 1、何为“爱欲”？（基本上也是柏拉图的） 对美好事物的爱，从偏好（preference）开始的，建立在两眼所见的东西上，建立在体现了肉体之美的理型（ideal）上。爱欲是对现实的美好之爱，自... 导语即开宗明义，哀悼爱欲的堕落（the fall of eros）。根本原因被看作是布尔乔亚社会民主的拉平化（leveling）、祛魅（demystifying）和算计倾向，扬波啜醴的还有弗洛伊德的性还原论与金赛性学报告的唯物论。以及，作者明里暗里批评的女权主义，认为她们将两性的和谐反转成了... 阿兰·布鲁姆的英文很好（当然他的法文、古希腊文也很好），推荐读英文原文。下面是Introduction的摘录，行文令人感动，心驰神往。为了主要体现布鲁姆的主张，这里的摘录没包括他对弗洛伊德、金赛、福柯、德里达等思潮的批评。要了解这些批评需要读全文。 东亚文明中的爱情与西... 先说个小问题。 译者用 的 之多，到了恶心的地步。翻译形容词，就一定要用 的？ 一译者缺乏最基本翻译常识。全书翻译一看就是磕磕绊绊、乱译一气！ 举个例子。 感觉，感受，感受力，感官，感情……这么多词出现在一页，能分的清么？ 布鲁姆行云流水之大才子，被翻译成逻辑不... 爱是需要，是渴望，是意识到自己的不完整。它是灵魂的一种激情，这种激情明显牵涉肉体，并且指向两个人的结合——不管这种结合多么不易。爱是一种让人自知（self-aware）的忘我，是一种使理性地审视自我成为可能的无理性。 2017-04-22 11:27  4人喜欢 爱是需要，是渴望，是意识到自己的不完整。它是灵魂的一种激情，这种激情明显牵涉肉体，并且指向两个人的结合——不管这种结合多么不易。爱是一种让人自知（self-aware）的忘我，是一种使理性地审视自我成为可能的无理性。 蒙田反对娈童的根本原因在于，巨大的年龄差距意味着年长者和少年之间的吸引必然是一种肉体吸引而非灵魂吸引。 2017-07-01 21:23  1人喜欢 蒙田反对娈童的根本原因在于，巨大的年龄差距意味着年长者和少年之间的吸引必然是一种肉体吸引而非灵魂吸引。 让孩子追求甜食，年轻人追求上帝和其他理念的任务，是误导他们，让他们看不清真正的目标。因为他们还不知道他真正渴望的是什么。我们的任务是在他的欲望还未得到满足之前先丰富她。这样做不是要禁止他获得满足——因为禁止满足意味着要压制他，使他分裂并反对自身。这样做的目的是想在他有能力从爱中区分出性以前，先升华他的欲望，这样当他学会了区分度那就不再能吸引它了。 2018-09-15 13:42 让孩子追求甜食，年轻人追求上帝和其他理念的任务，是误导他们，让他们看不清真正的目标。因为他们还不知道他真正渴望的是什么。我们的任务是在他的欲望还未得到满足之前先丰富她。这样做不是要禁止他获得满足——因为禁止满足意味着要压制他，使他分裂并反对自身。这样做的目的是想在他有能力从爱中区分出性以前，先升华他的欲望，这样当他学会了区分度那就不再能吸引它了。 There is an impoverishment today in our language about what used to be understood as life's most interesting experience, and this almost necessarily bespeaks an impoverishment of feeling. This is why we need the words of old writers who took eros so seriously and knew how to speak about it. Did Romeo and Juliet have a relationship? The term is suitable only for expressions like "they had a rela... 2018-01-17 13:01 There is an impoverishment today in our language about what used to be understood as life's most interesting experience, and this almost necessarily bespeaks an impoverishment of feeling. This is why we need the words of old writers who took eros so seriously and knew how to speak about it.Did Romeo and Juliet have a relationship? The term is suitable only for expressions like "they had a relationship." It betokens a chaste egalitarianism leveling different ranks and degrees of attachment. "Relationships" are based on "commitments," as in "I’m not ready to make a commitment." It is a term empty of content, implying that human connectedness can arise only out of a motiveless act of freedom.The Kinsey Report appeared pretty early on in our polling madness, which now appears to be the only element in decision making, transcending all questions of good and bad, prudent and foolish.It is one thing to be a virgin because God commands it and love and respect depend upon it, and another to say it is just a matter of choice, some do, some don't. Inasmuch as there is a positive drive to have sexual satisfaction, virginity becomes an empty heroic pose.But the question remains whether it is possible to study man, as opposed to the other animals, without taking account of will, reason, and imagination. These are the distinctively human faculties that allow sex to actualize itself as eros in human beings. Animals have sex and human beings have eros, and no accurate science is possible without making this distinction. Kinsey pays no attention to the fact that animals, although they indulge themselves whenever they can, have a much smaller range of sexual desires, almost exclusively directed toward procreation. The strange variety of human sexual desires points toward an indeterminateness that requires molding for a truly human life. It is comparable to the indeterminateness in human beings requiring politics, which the brute animals have no need of. One cannot ignore man's imaginative and rational contribution to his own formation, which is absent in the other species. As Aristotle says, the political community comes into being for the sake of life, but its end is the good life, a goal that was not evident in the first impulses. Likewise, coupling begins in sexual desire, but has as its end love. The various kinds of love affairs, like the various kinds of political orders, are human beings' often inept attempts to realize inchoate potentialities that are specific to man. Without examining the ends that these associations aimed at, no one can give an adequate account of them.Can one really discuss eros without arousal? Freud does not appear to have been a very sexy man, and he brought a grim and brutal view of man and society to his treatment of sex. It is all unmasking and showing the miserable effects of sex on our souls. In Freud, sex is the most important thing in our lives, but it is certainly not a beautiful one. The sex life of civilized man, as opposed to that of the other animals, is complex and interesting, but not precisely attractive or the kind of thing one would write poetry about. Freud inherits the same kind of distinction between nature and society as does Kinsey, but with a much less smiling view of the kind of satisfactions possible in society. His nature is what Hobbes described, where men are engaged in a war of all against all for survival, and society is a way of palliating that war bought at the cost of all kinds of repressions. Sex in the state of nature is brutish and essentially uninteresting. It becomes interesting in society because of what society does to it. And what society does is to distort it, repress it, and thereby extend it as an intruder into all areas of life. Freud remained throughout his life an unquestioning prisoner of natural science's unerotic view of nature. Eros is a by-product of society, which is necessary, but society is in no way an object of desire and joy.Ancient views of politics taught that man's nature has an impulse toward society and that society is not necessarily a maiming or division of man but potentially his perfection. Similarly, the ancients believed that eros is a natural longing for the beautiful, which, given the complexity of man and of things, can be damaged and misled but is in itself a perfection of human sociability by way of the passions.A statesman or an executive who undergoes psychoanalysis or who gets caught up in psychoanalytic theory cannot take his activities on their own level but only as the complex result of lower or more primitive causes. Such people get into the bad habit of being ironical about what they do in life, for it must always be interpreted in terms of other things for which it is only a cover-up. In an age where men and women are more and more actors and role players, this habit only reinforces their inability to be something, totally. Constantly looking at one's motives in this way is demystifying and furthers rationalizing calculation. This is peculiarly deadly to love, where being serious about the reality of the perfection imagined in another is essential to self-forgetting in passionate concern with that other.Listen to Mozart and then see what psychoanalytic interpreters do to his work. You have to have become very perverse (in a nonpsychoanalytical sense) to think such interpretations tell us anything about the music itself, which opens out onto a higher real world that cannot conceivably be constructed out of Freud's childish building blocks.The very imagination of poets, which from their own point of view is a divination of the highest beings, to Freudians must be the same as or akin to the erotic dreams that express and repress the coarse sexual energies. It all goes downward.People who read Hegel are at the outset asking themselves what his sexual motives might have been and cease asking whether his infinitely richer account of the world around us is true. Pretty soon we become abstract in our very souls.Freud is really unable clearly to distinguish unhealthy repression from healthy sublimation, unless it is by the degree of torment undergone and the social acceptability of the adjustment to it.This is revealing of the whole tendency of contemporary high cultural life: whether represented by natural science or deconstructionism, it can only deconstruct—it cannot construct or reconstruct. Eros has become only a fancy way of saying sex.Yet simply put, human sex is inseparable from the activity of the imagination. Everybody knows this. The body's secret movements are ignited by some images and turned off by others. Ideas of beauty and merit, as well as longings for eternity, are first expressed in the base coin of bodily movements.And it is imaginative activity that converts sex into eros. Eros is the brother of poetry, and the poets write in the grip of erotic passion while instructing men about eros. You can never have sex without imagination, whereas you can be hungry and eat without any contribution of imagination. Hunger is purely a bodily phenomenon and can safely be left to the scientists, and now to the dieticians. But our sexual dieticians are absurd. The best you can do by neglecting or denigrating imagination is to debauch and impoverish imagination.In a better world, sexual education would be concerned with the development of taste. All the great lovers in literature were also lovers of tales and had their heads full of sublime rivals in their divine quest. The progress of civilization is intimately connected with the elaboration of erotic sensibility and a real examination of the delicate interplay of human attractions. But everything today conspires to suffocate imagination.There is practically nothing within our horizon that can come to the aid of ideal longing. Sure, you can be a romantic today if you so choose, but it is a little like being a virgin in a whorehouse. It just doesn't fit with the temper of the times and gets no support in the current atmosphere.Talking about love has suffered the most. Eros requires speech, and beautiful speech, to communicate to its partner what it feels and wants. Now there is plenty of talk about relationships and how people are intruding on one another, and there is talk akin to discussions on the management of water resources. But the awestruck vision of the thing-in-itself has disappeared. It is almost impossible to get students to talk about the meaning of their erotic choices, except for a few artificial clichés that square them with contemporary right thinking.Just as there is a disastrous decline in political rhetoric, rhetoric necessary to explain the cause of justice and form a community around it, so there is an even more disastrous decline in the rhetoric of love. Yet to make love humanly, the partners have to talk to each other.Does tolerance necessarily require a relativism that goes to the depths of men's and women's souls, depriving them of their natural right to prefer and to learn about the beautiful? As always is the case with contemporary moralistic formulas, this one nourishes our easygoingness, our unwillingness to judge ourselves. Yet however uncomfortable such an activity is, those who are not willing to undertake it are depriving themselves of the transcendent pleasures of eros. It is difficult for me to understand how people can accept the trivializing formula that their sexual tastes don't do any harm, when they are talking about what is, or what should be, a thing so central to their hearts and so close to the very meaning of life that it could confer the greatest benefit.Of course there is power in the government-governed connection, but can anyone who has experienced politics think that is the whole or even the central story? Can Lincoln and Roosevelt be understood not to have cared for the governed, for the just and the good? And was Socrates merely deluded when he believed that his vocation was that of midwife, evoking only what is already within his students, respectfully trying in the first place to test their potentiality? If one compares Socrates to today's more advanced teachers, one cannot help but be shocked by the latter's insouciant indoctrination and abusive treatment of students, which have come to be seen as all too natural, justified by their suppression of the distinctions between knowledge and power, between teaching and propaganda.The worst distortion of all is to turn love, a relation that is founded in natural sweetness, mutual caring, and the contemplation of eternity in shared children, into a power struggle.The present has a tendency to appear to be permanent and natural.I can think of no better way of beginning our journey than by reading classic writers, poets or poet-philosophers, who cared about love. As I have said, speech about love by lovers is essential to the being of love; therefore, turning to the writers is not like turning to the encyclopedia for information but is to share in the experience of love.Shakespeare knew love, and unless Freud can explain it in all its power and subtlety as Shakespeare presents it, which Freud manifestly does not, his theory is inadequate.The best books not only help us to describe the phenomena, but help us to experience them. They are living expressions of profound experiences, and without such knowledgeable advocates of those experiences we would find it very difficult to gain access to matters that depend so much on educated feeling and for which merely external observation is not sufficient. Books may provide a voice for whatever remains of nature in us.This book is intended for the use of those who can still be charmed by books and who have an irreducible interest in the depiction of love. Such persons use books for pleasure and instruction. Books about love inform and elevate the fantasy life of their readers and actually become part of their eros while teaching them about it.Such writers can begin the enrichment of lives, feelings, and experiences that have become impoverished. The popular power that Victor Hugo's or Dickens' novels exercised for more than a century required no sophistication, and people have understood them pretty well and with a fair degree of agreement concerning what they were about. This does not preclude greater intelligence or finer taste from seeing more in those novels, but persons possessing them must begin where less sophisticated readers begin.Since I was a young man and a student in Europe, I have paid serious and sustained attention to the sources of these views: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Lacan, Foucault, Levinas, Lyotard, Deleuze, and others whose names it is now so fashionable to throw around. I am persuaded that all their theories, in the form that they have come to the United States, are nothing but a fad that will pass, one can only hope before they have done too much damage to the study of literature. I see a much greater depth and attractiveness in the books as they present themselves, rather than as they appear through the lenses of these new critics, equipped with their complicated decoders.I believe the writers whom I interpret in this book are much more intelligent than I am and probably know the questions better than I do. I do not share the assumption of our dogmatic critics that we are the first ever to know the sources of all things. Part of my intention in this book is to restore our awareness of the ambiguities and the conflicts in nature as it presents itself to us. True intellectual openness consists in trying to understand the writers as they understood themselves, which is possible if one is not arrogant about one's own understanding of things. One begins by picking up a story and reading it with the same wonder that one had as a child. The combination of innocent experience and cultivated intelligence is what we seek. I am sure that many of my particular statements about the books in the following chapters will raise objections in the minds of my readers, and I hope that this will encourage them to make better interpretations on their own—but without turning away from the writers and their books to seek ill-fitting keys in Freud or Derrida. You may disagree with my explanation of something that Darcy says to Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice, or one of Julien's strategies for the seduction of Mathilde, but the means for correcting me should be your careful observation and your good common sense.Always before my mind's eye while writing this book was a passage from Xenophon where Socrates in the simplest and most accessible way tells a hostile critic what he does and what counts for him: Antiphon, as another man gets pleasure from a good horse, or a dog, or a bird, I get even more pleasure from good friends. And if I have something good, I teach it to them, and I introduce them to others who will be useful to them with respect to virtue. And together with my friends I go through the treasures of the wise men of old which they left behind written in books, and we peruse them. If we see something good, we pick it out and hold it to be a great profit, if we are able to prove useful to one another.Such Socratic philosophizing is possible almost everywhere and at all times—"good-natured" persons sitting around reading the books of wise men and seeing together what they can get out of them for the guidance of their lives. "Friend," "good," "profit," and "pleasure" are the powerful words that cluster around the reading of books in Socrates' life. At the origins of philosophy and right up to our day this has been the life-perfecting activity, and the preservation of this naive but ever so mysterious and vulnerable pursuit will, I am certain, prove decisive for access to the reality represented by those wonderful words.I wrote this book while recovering from a serious illness, and strangely this activity turned that period into one of the most wondrous times of my life. Every day I could consort with Rousseau or Stendhal or Austen and learn such wonderful things about loving and hating, benefaction and doing harm. When I went to bed at night I looked forward to getting up in the morning and resuming this living relationship to the books, and I was lifted above my petty concerns by them. I have attempted to communicate some of that experience here. How much more delight there is in learning about the virtues and the vices from Jane Austen than in emptily trying to teach them to her. Friendship and love may very well consist in sharing such experiences with another. In itself and immediately this transports us out of our dreary times. I hope that by this book I may touch at least a few potential friends who can love literature in spite of the false doctors who try to cure them of it.I have no desire, and the facts do not permit me, to preach a high-minded and merely edifying version of love. If you still have the heart to proceed with reading this book, you will see that, as there is light here, there is also darkness, much hope and much disappointment, possible adornment of life and real ugliness and terror. I simply try to act as an honest broker for greater persons and writers than I am. As I have said, I present no theory, nor do I have one, although my observations cannot help but call into question other theories. I have no such high aspirations, hoping only to show you what some great writers thought these things are.Rousseau is closest to whatever reminiscences we have of love. His attempt to save love by fostering belief in an illusion of our own creation was in the long run, I believe, necessarily a failure. But from that failure we can learn about ourselves and also be motivated to look elsewhere.Shakespeare is to me the purest voice of nature, and he does not meddle with nature. His plays provide us with the greatest variety of erotic expression, and with Shakespeare eros is the proper term to use. All kinds of men and women, in all kinds of situations, are given us by Shakespeare to appreciate and understand, not to transform according to our will or our apparent needs. He takes lovers with the utmost seriousness and portrays with sympathy love's promise of unity, its mysterious attraction to beauty, and its hope to overcome even the ugliness of death. Yet he also shows its folly and disappointment. He helps us marvel at love's transcendence of political loyalty and ambition, and still reminds us of its need for legal limitation. Finally, he lets us see that love has a history from pagan antiquity to modernity—and that Christianity is the source not only of the repression decried since the Romantics, but of a deepening of women and a new sensitivity of men.Plato's works, in addition to their philosophical content, are arguably works of art comparable to the greatest. He presents eros not only as a painful and needy sign of our incompleteness, but as giving and productive. He explores the tensions between love of one's own and love of the good, and between the politically necessary subordination of eros to the family and the liberation suggested by such questionable erotic phenomena as incest, pederasty, and promiscuity. He sees in eros the possibility of both individual happiness and true human community. 爱欲是诗的兄弟，当诗人教导人们爱欲时，他们自身的写作也正处于爱欲激情的掌控之中。没有想象，你永远无法拥有性，但另一方面，就算没有想象的任何帮助，你仍能感受到饥饿，仍能进食。因为饥饿纯粹是身体性的。 2018-09-14 18:16 爱欲是诗的兄弟，当诗人教导人们爱欲时，他们自身的写作也正处于爱欲激情的掌控之中。没有想象，你永远无法拥有性，但另一方面，就算没有想象的任何帮助，你仍能感受到饥饿，仍能进食。因为饥饿纯粹是身体性的。 让孩子追求甜食，年轻人追求上帝和其他理念的任务，是误导他们，让他们看不清真正的目标。因为他们还不知道他真正渴望的是什么。我们的任务是在他的欲望还未得到满足之前先丰富她。这样做不是要禁止他获得满足——因为禁止满足意味着要压制他，使他分裂并反对自身。这样做的目的是想在他有能力从爱中区分出性以前，先升华他的欲望，这样当他学会了区分度那就不再能吸引它了。 2018-09-15 13:42 让孩子追求甜食，年轻人追求上帝和其他理念的任务，是误导他们，让他们看不清真正的目标。因为他们还不知道他真正渴望的是什么。我们的任务是在他的欲望还未得到满足之前先丰富她。这样做不是要禁止他获得满足——因为禁止满足意味着要压制他，使他分裂并反对自身。这样做的目的是想在他有能力从爱中区分出性以前，先升华他的欲望，这样当他学会了区分度那就不再能吸引它了。 欲望与责任的永恒冲突： 这是现代人的处境。一个有文化的人，性欲已经转化，以至于它渴望唯一固定伴侣身上的真、善、美，以及作为这种渴望的完成和奖赏的性高潮。这是对原初状态的一次回归，因为在原初状态下，履行自然责任——生育——也有这种最大的快乐作为奖赏。 2018-09-15 13:22 欲望与责任的永恒冲突：这是现代人的处境。一个有文化的人，性欲已经转化，以至于它渴望唯一固定伴侣身上的真、善、美，以及作为这种渴望的完成和奖赏的性高潮。这是对原初状态的一次回归，因为在原初状态下，履行自然责任——生育——也有这种最大的快乐作为奖赏。 人有两个青春期，一个青春期让他有能力繁衍后代，而另一个青春期让他有道德能力和理智能力去关心他的后代。在两个青春期之间，至少隔了十年。真正的文化在于两个青春期的一致。 2018-09-15 13:17 人有两个青春期，一个青春期让他有能力繁衍后代，而另一个青春期让他有道德能力和理智能力去关心他的后代。在两个青春期之间，至少隔了十年。真正的文化在于两个青春期的一致。 在完全自然的性行为中，伴侣们根本不关心另一方的所思所感，也不关心另一方之前做过什么，今后会做什么。 2018-09-15 11:29 在完全自然的性行为中，伴侣们根本不关心另一方的所思所感，也不关心另一方之前做过什么，今后会做什么。