Chapter 3 Chapter 2 The Theory of Love-1

(1) Love is the answer to the question of human existence Every theory of love must be based on the theory of man and the theory of human existence.The love we can see in animals, or more precisely what resembles love in animals, is mainly a part of animal instinct.Only a remnant of this instinct can be seen in man.The fundamental point of human existence is that man has transcended the animal kingdom, transcended instinctive adaptability, and divorced from nature-although man can never be completely divorced from nature.Man continues to be a part of nature, but is separated from nature, and can never be united with nature again.After man was kicked out of heaven, he lost his harmony with nature, and the god with a flaming sword blocked his way back.Man can only go on, constantly develop his reason, and replace the never-ending harmony of the age of apes with a new harmony full of humanity.

From the very moment of birth a man—that is to say, race and individual—is pushed from a determinate environment, such as instinct, into an indeterminate, fully open environment.Man knows only the past and knows nothing of the future—except that it ends in death. Man possesses reason; man is life, a life conscious of its own existence.Man is aware of himself, others, the possibility of his past and future.Man's awareness of his single existence, of his short life, of the inevitability of life, of the inevitability of death, of his loneliness and isolation, of his powerlessness in the face of the forces of society and nature— All of this makes his idiosyncratic and solitary existence an intolerable confinement.If man cannot free himself from his prison and break it, if he cannot unite in one way or another with other people or with the world around him, he goes mad.

Anyone who has experienced loneliness is bound to feel fear.In fact loneliness is at the root of every fear.Loneliness means being disconnected from the outside world, unable to develop human powers, being helpless, unable to grasp the world, things and people;So loneliness is the source of a strong sense of fear, and loneliness can also cause feelings of shame and guilt.In the Bible, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they no longer obeyed God (only when they freely become disobedient, good and evil will be produced), and they separated from the animal kingdom and nature primordial harmony, and thus become human.When they were born as human beings, "they were ashamed to discover that they were naked."Are we also supposed to use nineteenth-century morality to explain the old, basic apotheosis that the story wants us to believe that Adam and Eve were ashamed because they both saw each other's sexual parts?This explanation is certainly wrong.If we understand the story in this way, we lose sight of the main point, which is that, in becoming aware of themselves and each other, men and women also become aware of the differences and distances between them, of being of different sexes.Because they recognize their differences, they are strangers to each other because they haven't learned to love each other—as evidenced by the fact that Adam blames Eve instead of trying to defend her.To be aware of the distance between human beings without love to achieve a new union - this is the source of shame, but also the source of guilt and fear.

The greatest need for man is therefore to overcome his loneliness and to escape the prison of solitude.Man's total failure to achieve this end leads to man's madness, for his fear of utter solitude is overcome only by being so utterly detached from the world around him that he no longer feels isolated from it— Because the world he was cut off from was gone from his life. Human beings—people of all ages and cultures—have always faced the same problem: how to overcome this loneliness, how to transcend the world of the individual and realize the unity of mankind.Primitive cave people, nomads, Egyptian farmers, Phoenician merchants, Roman soldiers, medieval monks, Japanese samurai, and modern clerks and workers all had this problem.The question remains the same because it emerges from the same soil—the human condition, the condition of human existence.But the answer to this question varies.Man can make his own answer to God and others through the worship of animals, human sacrifice or military plunder, luxury enjoyment, Puritan-style abstinence, fanatical work, artistic activities and creative labor.While there are ways of answering—to list them in detail would produce a history of humanity—it is by no means infinite.On the contrary, if we put aside some minor and non-essential differences, we can be sure that people living in different cultures can answer this question to a limit.The history of religion and philosophy is a history of these answers, both numerous and limited in number.

People's answer to this question depends to a certain extent on the height of personality that people have achieved.In a child the word "I" is hardly formed.Every child is one with the mother, and as long as the mother is by his side, he will never feel alone.His loneliness is assuaged by the presence of his mother, by the touch of her breasts and skin.It is not until the child develops to the stage of loneliness and individuality that the presence of the mother is not sufficient to relieve his loneliness, which must be overcome in other ways. Humans experience harmony with nature in much the same way as children.The earth, animals, and plants are entirely man's world.Man sees himself as identical to the animal, which is manifested in his dressing up as an animal and in his worship of totems or other animal gods.But the farther man is separated from his primordial ties, the more alienated he is from the natural world, and the more he seeks a way out of solitude.

One way to do this is through different forms of indulgence.For example, self-induced—or drug-assisted—trance states are a form of orgy.Many rituals of primitive tribes provide living examples of this.In a brief moment of euphoria the world disappears, and with it the sense of isolation.In the case of group indulgences, the participants also experience the feeling of sharing their fate with a group, which intensifies the effect.Sexual experience is often closely linked with this kind of indulgence.Sexual indulgence can achieve the same effects as trance and drug use.The ritual of group sexual indulgence is widespread, and the effect is that the participants will not feel a strong sense of loneliness for a while, but gradually the feeling of fear will rise again, so the ritual must be repeated.

So long as indulgence is a collective activity of a tribe, it is impossible to arouse feelings of fear and shame.Such an action is "right", even a virtue, because it is a collective activity, not only approved by doctors and monks, but even supported, so there is no need for participants to feel ashamed or responsible. feeling of guilt.But people living in cultures that have lost this ritual choose to overcome their loneliness in the same way.Alcohol and drugs are the way some people choose to live in an age of non-community indulgence.Contrary to those who live in a culture of group indulgence, these people suffer from the pangs of conscience.On the one hand, they want to overcome their loneliness through alcohol and drug abuse, but their loneliness intensifies after the indulgence, so they have to repeat the indulgence more often and more intensely.To some extent sexual indulgence is a natural and normal way of overcoming loneliness, and it is partially effective.Many people who are unable to alleviate their loneliness in other ways place a high value on the demands of sexual indulgence, which are in fact not so different from alcohol and drug abuse.Some people try desperately to overcome their fear of being alone through sexual indulgence, but the result is only more and more loneliness, because sexual intercourse without love can only fill the gulf between two people for a moment.

All the ways of achieving human bonding through lust have three characteristics: first, they are intense, even violent; second, they require the whole person—including body and mind; and third, they require constant repetition— Because the effects of indulgence last only a short time.But the most common way to overcome loneliness, both in the past and in the present, is the exact opposite.This method is to achieve unity with others through the same group of people, through the same group of people's habits, styles and opinions.The development of this method also has a historical process.

In a lower society a group is small in number and often consists of people who are closely related by blood or who live together.As a culture develops, so does a group of people, and it becomes a body polity, a nation, or a sect.Even the poorest Roman can proudly say "I am a citizen of Rome!" Rome and the Roman Empire are his home, his fatherland and the world.Bonding within the same group is still the most common way to overcome loneliness in Western societies today.In this combination, the participants lose most of their individuality in order to belong to the group.If I were exactly the same as others, if I felt and thought like them, if I dressed, my habits, and my opinions were like the model of the group, I would be saved from experiencing the dreadful loneliness.Examples of this can indeed be seen in societies where the possibility of resisting this sameness exists in democracies where dictatorial forms of state require the use of threats and terror to create an identity.But only a few extraordinary and brave heroes and martyrs in despotism resist obedience.Although there is a difference between a democratic system and an autocratic form of state, it is also worrying to the extent that democracy reduces people to a pattern. The reason for this phenomenon is that people always want to achieve union with others in some way. If there is a better way, then only the same way can be adopted by the same group of people.We can understand the power of the fear of being different and alienated from the same people only when we understand how much we fear being cut off from others.Sometimes this concern is forgivable, considering the real dangers of being different.But the fact is that people do so more voluntarily than forcedly—at least in Western democracies.

Most people are not aware of this requirement in themselves.They live under the illusion that they act on their own volition, that they are individual beings, that their opinions are formed by the brain—and that it is pure coincidence that their opinions match those of the majority.They even thought it just vindicated "their" point of view.As for their surviving desire for individuality, they are satisfied by trivial things: embroidering their initials on suitcases and sweaters, hanging their name tags on glass windows, attending a political party or A student union. The advertising slogan "Something else" proves how much people need individuality in a social reality where individuality is almost non-existent!

This growing tendency to eliminate all differences is closely related to the concepts and practices of equality that have developed in advanced industrial societies. The concept of "equality" in religion means that we are all sons of God, all part of the human-God essence, all one.At the same time, it also means that the differences between people should be respected, because although we are one, each of us is a complete body that exists only once, and is a self-contained universe.For example, the Jewish scriptures affirmed the one-time existence of human beings: "Whoever saves a life saves the whole world; whoever destroys a life destroys the whole world." Equality in the philosophy of the Western Enlightenment Refers to the conditions for the development of individuality.Kant stated this most clearly.He believes that people should never be a tool to achieve the goals of others. People themselves are a goal, not a tool for others. In this sense, all people are the same.Similar to the thinking of the Enlightenment, different schools of socialist thinkers interpreted equality as the elimination of exploitation and the use of human beings, whether cruel or "humane." In today's capitalist society, the concept of equality has changed."Equality" today refers to machines—that is, the equality of depersonalized human beings.Equality means "one model" not "unity".It is the same pattern of an abstraction, of people who do the same work, seek the same enjoyment, read the same newspapers, think and feel the same.In this regard we should analyze with skepticism some of the achievements that are said to be the hallmarks of our social progress, such as the equal status of women.I need not emphasize here that I am not against equality between men and women; but some positive results in the fight for equality between men and women should not blind our eyes.Women are equal to men because the differences between men and women disappear.The philosophical thesis of the Enlightenment—that the soul is gender-neutral—is widely used.The gender poles disappear, and with them the sexuality that was based on them.Men and women are identical, not equal as opposite poles.Modern society advocates the ideal of impersonal equality, because it needs "human-atoms", which are indistinguishable from each other and can function smoothly without friction when brought together. They all obey the same order, Still, everyone was sure they were doing what they wanted.Just as modern mass production requires the standardization of products, the development of society also requires the standardization of people, and this is called "equality". The union of human beings through identification is neither an intense nor a violent process, but proceeds very calmly according to a rigid formula.It is for this reason that it is often insufficient to allay the fear of loneliness.The prevalence of alcoholism, drug abuse, and suicide in Western societies today shows the limits of this approach.In addition, this method often only requires the participant to use his brain, not his body, so it also has its weaknesses compared with the method of indulgence.This method has only one advantage: it is persistent and not impulsive.A person is introduced into a pattern at the age of three or four, and never loses contact with this group of people from then on. Another element of our modern social life must also be taken into account when talking about this approach: the cycle of work and recovery from fatigue.A person is just a number as a member of the workforce and management.He needs hardly any initiative; his tasks are assigned by the organization of labour.There is also little difference between leading and being led, since both are performing tasks prescribed by the entire organizational structure, not only at the prescribed pace, but also in the prescribed manner.Even their feelings of joy, tolerance, trust, ambition, and the ability to work smoothly with each are predetermined.Their ways of entertaining are much the same, if not so rigidly uniform.The books to read are selected by the book club; the movies to be seen are selected by the movie theater owners and the advertisements they pay for in print;From birth to death, from Monday to Sunday, from morning to night—all actions proceed in the same and predetermined fashion.I ask you: How can a man trapped in such a net not forget that he is a man, a man who exists only once, who has only one chance to live, who can experience hope, disappointment, worry and fear, who longs for love and love. What about people who are threatened by nothingness and loneliness? A third possibility for achieving unity and harmony is creative labor, to which belongs both the labor of the artist and the craftsman.In every creative labor the creator comes to terms with his matter—the matter which composes the world around man.Whether it is a carpenter making a table, or a goldsmith making a piece of jewelry, whether it is a farmer farming, or a painter painting - in every creative labor, the laborer and the object become one. unanimous.But this only applies to labor that you plan, perform, and see results.In the modern work procedure of a staff member, a worker on an assembly line, this characteristic of labor hardly exists.The laborer becomes part of a machine or a bureaucratic organization, he ceases to be "self"—for the laborer no longer has the possibility of agreeing with society except to fit in. The unity achieved through creative labor is not the unity between people.The unity achieved through indulgence is temporary.The unity achieved by the same group of people identifying and adapting to this group of people is only a false unity.The real and comprehensive answer to the question of human existence is the unity of human beings in love. It is the most intense pursuit in people's hearts to demand the realization of the combination of people and people.This is the most basic requirement of human beings, and it is a force that holds people, tribes, families and societies together.Failure to fulfill this requirement means madness or destruction—destruction of oneself or destruction of others.Without love, human beings cannot survive a day.But if we call the union of human beings "love," we have a serious problem.Union can be achieved in different ways—the differences between these ways are almost as important as the commonalities of the various forms of love.So should we call all the ways "love"?Or do you think that love is only a special form of union which has been regarded as the supreme maxim by all humanistic religious and philosophical systems during nearly four thousand years of Eastern and Western history? As with all discussions of literal meaning, there are different answers to this question.But the only thing that matters is that we should know what kind of union we think of when we speak of love.Do we see love as a mature answer to the problem of human existence, or as an immature form of love, the union of what is known as a symbiotic organism?Below I just regard the former as love, but our discussion starts from the latter. The biological model for the union of symbiotic organisms is the relationship between the pregnant mother and the embryo.They are two bodies and one body.They live together (symbiosis), they need each other.The fetus is part of the mother and gets everything he needs from her, so the mother is his world.She nurtures and protects the fetus, and at the same time her own life is enhanced by the presence of the fetus.In the union of physiological symbiotic organisms, the two are physically independent of each other, but psychologically interdependent. The negative form of symbiotic organic bonding is submission—the medical term is masochism.The masochistic person frees himself from feelings of loneliness and isolation by making himself a part of himself as his guide, revelator, protector.The Protector is his life, without which he cannot live.Regardless of whether the protector is a human or a god, in short, his power surpasses everything.He is sovereign and nothing himself, and the masochistic must become part of his protector, for only then can he share in his protector's greatness, power, and safety.The masochist never makes any decisions and takes any risks, he is never alone, but he is never independent either.He is not a whole person, not yet fully born, so to speak.The object of worship is called an idol in the language of religion, and the masochist worships his protector more than an idol.This cult can be mixed with physical and sexual demands, in which case the obedience of the masochist is not only a product of the imagination, but a physical need related to the whole body.Then there are the pathologies of succumbing to fate, disease, rhythmic music, or euphoria induced by drug use and hypnotic states—in all these cases the afflicted person loses his wholeness and makes himself a human being. or an instrument of a thing; thereby freeing him from an independent and free answer to the question of existence. An active form of symbiotic union is domination over another human being—the medical equivalent of masochism is sadism.The sadist escapes his loneliness by making the other a part of himself, he swallows up his admirer, and thus makes himself a hundredfold. Just as those under his control cannot be separated from him, the sadistic man cannot be separated from his admirers, and neither side can lose the other.The only difference is - the sadist orders, exploits, damages and bullies the other person, who enjoys being manipulated by him.From a practical point of view, it seems that there is a big difference between the two, but in a deeper sense, the difference between the two is not as important as the commonality between them, which is that in the process of union, both sides are very different. Lose its independence and integrity.If we understand this, it is not difficult to establish that in general a person responds sadistically and masochistically, depending on the object.Hitler was above all a sadist to others, but a masochist's reaction to his fate, history, and the "power" of nature. ① The opposite of symbiotic union is full-fledged love, that is, becoming one with another while preserving one's own integrity and independence, that is, one's own individuality.Human love is an active force that breaks down the walls that separate people and unites them.Love enables a person to overcome loneliness and isolation, but at the same time enables a person to remain true to himself, to preserve his integrity and who he is.In love, there is a strange phenomenon that two lives merge into one, but still maintain two bodies. If we say that love is an "active activity," we run into the problem of the double meaning of the word "active activity."The modern usage of the word generally refers to the behavior of people changing the existing state through labor.So a person who runs a business, a person who studies medicine, a worker on an assembly line, a carpenter who makes a chair, or an athlete is all active people.The common denominator of their activities is to achieve an external purpose.But here we are not considering the source of positivity.We can give an example to illustrate.Some people work feverishly because of extreme anxiety or loneliness, while others work for promotion and fortune.In this case the man is a fanatic, the slave of a passion, and his "activity" is really a "passivity" because he is driven by external forces.He is a man who suffers, not a man who "does".On the other hand, people tend to see a person who sits in a chair meditating, observing and experiencing himself and his relationship to the world as "negative" because he is not "doing" anything.In fact this kind of concentrated meditation is the highest activity, the activity of the soul, which can only be achieved by those who are free and independent in their hearts. One sense, in its modern application, of the concept "active activity" refers to effort to achieve external ends.Another sense of the word is the use of man's internal powers, whether or not external changes are achieved.Spinoza brilliantly explains the second sense of the word.He divided emotions into two types, positive and negative, into "action" and "frenzy."If a person acts under the control of positive emotions, he is free and the master of emotions.If he is dominated by a negative emotion, he is driven, the object of motives of which he himself does not understand.In this way, Spinoza finally concludes that virtue and self-control are one and the same. ②Envy, ambition, and every form of avarice are passions and fanaticism; love on the contrary is an action, the exercise of human powers, which can only be exercised in freedom and can never be the product of coercion. Love is a positive, not a negative emotion.Generally speaking, it can be expressed in another way, that is, love is first of all given rather than received. What is "give"?This question may seem easy to answer, but in fact it is complex and has two layers of meaning.A very popular misconception is to interpret "give" as giving up, being taken away by someone else, or making a sacrifice.This is how giving is understood by a person whose personality has not moved beyond the stage of acceptance, exploitation, or greed.A "mercantilist" person is also ready to give, but it must be exchanged.To "give" without "getting" is deception to him. ③People with basically unproductive personality structures will have a feeling of being taken away by others.So most people of this type refuse to give things to others.Yet others turn "giving" into a virtue of self-sacrifice.They believe that because "giving" is painful, it should be done.The virtue of giving is readiness to sacrifice, and for them the maxim that "giving" is better than "getting" means enduring loss rather than experiencing pleasure. Creative people understand "give" quite differently.They believe that "giving" is the highest expression of power, and it is precisely through "giving" that I can experience my strength, my "abundance", and my "vitality".Experiencing the sublimation of my life force filled me with joy. ④ I feel that I am alive, so I am very happy. "Giving" brings more pleasure than "getting", not because "giving" is a sacrifice, but because "giving" expresses my vitality. If we use this principle to explain various special phenomena, it is not difficult to realize the validity of this principle.The most basic example can be found in the category of sex.The peak of male sexual behavior is a kind of behavior of giving: the man gives his sexual organs to the woman, and at the moment of orgasm, he gives the other party his semen.As long as he is not impotent, he must do so.If he cannot give, he is impotent.The same is true for women, but in a more complicated form.A woman surrenders herself, she opens the door to the interior of a woman, and while receiving, she also gives, and if she has no ability to give, but can only receive, she is frigid.The behavior given to the woman is also expressed in her role as mother.She gave her nourishment to the fetus in her womb, and later she gave the baby the milk and the warmth of the mother's body.It is extremely painful for women not to give. Giving within the realm of the material world is wealth.People who own things are not rich, but people who give things to others are rich.A miser who is afraid of loss, no matter how much he owns, is psychologically poor and wretched.The man who is willing to give what is his is rich, and he feels himself capable of helping others.Only those who do not even have the necessities of life cannot experience the joy of helping others.But daily life experience tells us that the standard for measuring whether there are enough necessities of life depends on both the actual property of a person and the nature of a person's character.It is well known that the poor are often more willing to give than the rich.Nevertheless, it is very depressing that poverty above a certain point often leaves many people unable to give—not only because it reveals the poverty of the poor, but also because the poor are deprived of the joy. But the most important category given is not the material category, but the special category possessed by human beings.What can one give to another?He can give to others the most precious thing he has, his life.But this does not necessarily mean that he must give his life for others, but that he should give others what is alive in him.He should share with others his joys, interests, understandings, knowledge, humors, and sorrows—in short, everything that is alive in him.By his giving he enriches the other, and at the same time he enhances the other's sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness.He does not give in order to receive, but through his giving inevitably arouses something alive in the other.Therefore, his giving also includes making the receiver a giver, and both parties will be filled with joy because a certain vitality is awakened in their hearts.In the act of giving something new is born, and both the giver and the receiver will be grateful for this new power.This is manifested in love: no vitality means no ability to create love.Marx expresses the above thought extremely beautifully.He said: "If you presuppose that man is man and that his relation to the world is a fully human relation, then you can only exchange love for love, trust for trust. If you want to appreciate art, you must Be an artistic person; if you want to influence others, you must be an artistic person; if you want to influence others, you must be a person who promotes and inspires others. You are the same as human beings and nature Every relationship of yours must be a definite expression of your real personal life, in conformity with the object of your will. If you love another, but do not arouse the other's love, that is, your love as a love cannot make The other party produces love, if as a loving person you cannot transform yourself into a loved one, then your love is weak and a kind of misfortune." ⑤ "Give" not only in love means " have to".The teacher learns from his pupils, the actor is inspired by the audience, and the psychoanalyst heals himself by curing others, on the precondition that the giver should not see the other as the object of his help, but There should be a real, creative bond with the other person. The fact that the ability to love as an act of giving depends on the development of one's character seems needless to be emphasized.The prerequisite for this ability is a dominant productive orientation.A person who holds this attitude overcomes his dependence, narcissism*(*The concept of "narcissism" was proposed by Freud, who called people's self-appreciation "narcissism" ", he believes that "narcissism" must precede other love, which is mainly manifested in the fact that children use their innate libido (referring to mental energy, especially the energy of sexual instinct) on themselves. -Translator's Note ) and the demands of exploiting others, and can find trust in one's own human strength and the courage to achieve one's purpose.If these characteristics are lacking, people are afraid to give themselves, that is, to love. In addition to the element of giving, the positivity of love has some other basic elements.These elements are common to all forms of love, namely: caring, responsibility, respect and understanding. The element of concern is most prominent in maternal love.If a mother refuses to feed, bathe, and care for her child's physical comfort, no one will believe her, no matter how much she stresses her love for her child.But if she cares about children, her love is believable.So is the love of animals and plants.If a woman tells us she loves flowers, and we find she has forgotten to water them, we will not believe her.Love is an active concern for life and the growth of what we love.If this positive concern is lacking, then it's just an emotion, not love.This element of love is beautifully depicted in the Book of Jonah.God told Jonah to go to Nineveh and announce to the inhabitants that if they did not repent, they would be punished.Jonah was unwilling to carry out this mission, he He fled because he feared that the inhabitants of Nineveh would repent and ask God for forgiveness.Jonah was a man of law enforcement, but not a man of love.On his way to escape, he finds himself hiding in the belly of a large fish, a symbol of isolation and imprisonment, and it was because of Jonah's lack of love and compassion that he was sent there.God saved him, and Jonah went to Nineveh to proclaim the word of God to the residents there. At this time, just as Jonah was worried, the residents of Nineveh changed their minds and repented devoutly. God forgave them and promised not to make the whole city overwhelmed.Jonah was displeased and disappointed. He wanted to see "justice" instead of love.At last he sat down in the shadow of a tree and regained his lost peace.This tree was originally made by God to grow taller, so as to shield Jonah from the scorching sun.At this time, God let the tree die. Jonah was very depressed and complained to God.God replied: "You feel sorry for the tree that grew overnight and died overnight, although you neither planted it nor cared about it. Why can't I feel sorry for the 120,000 good and bad residents of Nineveh?" What about the many animals?” God explained to Jonah that the essence of love is to create and nurture, and love and labor are inseparable.人们爱自己劳动的成果，人们为所爱之物而劳动。 关心和关怀还包括爱情的另一方面，即责任心。今天人们常常把责任心理解为是义务，是外部强加的东西。但是责任心这个词的本来意义是一件完全自觉的行动，是我对另一个生命表达出来或尚未表达出来的愿望的答复。“有责任”意味着有能力并准备对这些愿望给予回答。约拿对尼尼微的居民没有责任心，像该隐一样，他同样会提出这一问题“难道我应该是我弟弟的看守吗？”。一个爱的人的回答是，我兄弟的生命不仅与他自己有关，而且也同我有关。我应对其他的人负责就像对自己负责一样。这种责任心在母子关系中主要表现在母亲对孩子生理上的要求的关心。在成人之间则也包括关心对方的精神要求。 如果爱情没有第三个要素：尊重，那责任心就很容易变成控制别人和奴役别人。尊重别人不是惧怕对方。尊重这个词的出处就是有能力实事求是地正视对方和认识他独有的个性。尊重就是要努力地使对方能成长和发展自己，因此尊重决无剥削之意。我希望一个被我爱的人应该以他自己的方式和为了自己去成长、发展，而不是服务于我。如果我爱他人，我应该感到和他一致，而且接受他本来的面目，而不是要求他成为我希望的样子，以便使我能把他当作使用的对象。只有当我自己达到独立，在没有外援的情况下独立地走自己的路，即不想去控制和利用别人，只有在这种情况下，尊重对方才成为可能。只有在自由的基础上才会有爱情，正像在一首古老的法国歌曲中唱的那样“爱情是自由之子，永远不会是控制的产物”。 人们只有认识对方，了解对方才能尊重对方。如果不以了解为基础，关心和责任心都会是盲目的，而如果不是从关怀的角度出发去了解对方，这种了解也是无益的。了解的方式多种多样。成为爱情一要素的了解是要深入事物的内部，而不是满足于一知半解。我只有用他人的眼光看待他人，而把对自己的兴趣退居二位。我才能了解对方。譬如：我可以知道这个人在生气，即使他自己不表露出来。但我还可以更进一步地去了解他，然后就知道，他很害怕和不安，他感到孤独和受到良心的谴责。这样我就明白他的生气只是他内部更深的东西的反映，这时我眼中的他不再是一个发怒的人，而是一个处在恐惧和惶恐不安之中的受苦的人。 了解同爱情还有另一个基本的关系。希望同另一个人结合以逃避自我孤独的监禁同另一个完全符合人性的愿望有紧密的联系，那就是认识“人的秘密”。生命从其纯生物的角度来看是一个奇迹和秘密，而在人的范围内每个人对自己和对别人都是一个不可解答的秘密。我们认识自己，但尽管作了一切努力还是不认识自己，我们认识他人，但我们还是不认识他们，因为我们和他们都不是一回事。我们越深入我们生命的深处或另一个人的生命深处，我们离认识生命的目标就越远。尽管如此，我们不能阻止这种深入了解人的灵魂的秘密、了解人的核心，即“自我”的愿望将继续存在。 有一种可以认识这一秘密的令人绝望的可能性—那就是拥有掌握对方的全部权力，利用这种权力我可以随心所欲地支配他，让他按照我的意志去感受，去思想，把他变成一样东西，变成我的东西，我的财产。在这方面最明显的表现就是施虐淫者的极端作法，施虐淫者要求并能使一个人受苦，他折磨和迫使那个人泄露他的秘密。要求发现人的秘密是恣意暴行和破坏狂的基本动机。艾萨克?巴比尔*(*艾萨克?巴比尔(1894-1941)，苏联作家。 —译者注)很清楚地表达了这一思想。他摘引俄国国内战争时一个军官的话，这个军官刚刚把他过去的主人踩死。军官说：“用一颗子弹—我想说—用一颗子弹只能把这个家伙干掉……开枪是永远不能深入他的灵魂，到达他作为一个人和有灵魂的地方。但我毫无顾忌，我已经不止一次踩死敌人，每次都超过一个小时。你知道吗—我想知道，生命到底是什么，我们天天遇到的生命到底是什么？”⑥ 在孩子身上我们经常能看到这条通向知识的捷径。孩子随手拿起一样东西，把它弄坏，以便认识这样东西。譬如他抓到一个蝴蝶，就很残忍地把翅膀折断，他要认识蝴蝶，迫使它交出自己的秘密。在这儿残暴有一个较深的动机：那就是希望认识事物和生命的秘密。 认识秘密的另一条途径是爱情。爱情是积极深入对方的表现。在这一过程中，我希望了解秘密的要求通过结合得到满足。在结合的过程中，我认识对方，认识自己，认识所有的人，但还是“一无所知”。我对生命的了解不是通过思想传导的知识，而是通过人唯一可以使用的方式—通过人与人的结合。施虐癖的产生是为了了解秘密，但却一无所得。我把一个生命一块一块的解体，我所能达到的就是这一生命被破坏。只有爱情才能带给我知识，在结合的过程中回答我提出的问题。在爱情中，在献身中，在深入对方中，我找到了自己，发现了自己，发现了我们双方，发现了人。 德尔斐的箴言“认识你自己”表达了我们要求认识自己和他人的愿望。这是全部心理学的渊源。因为这一愿望是要认识完整的人，认识他内心最深处的秘密，所以通常的知识，由思想传导的知识不能满足这一愿望。即使我们对自己的了解比现在高出一千倍，也不可能深入事物的最本质的东西。我们对自己是一个迷，别人对我们来说也永远会是一个迷。达到全部了解人的唯一途径是思想上的认识，也就是心理学的知识是实现通过爱情达到全面了解的一个条件。我必须客观地去认识对方和自己，以便使自己能够看到对方的现实状态或者能够克服幻想，克服我想像中的被歪曲了的他的图像。我只有客观地认识一个人，我才能在爱中了解他的真正本质。 ⑦ 认识人的问题同认识神的宗教问题平行存在。在传统的西方神学中，人们试图从思想上认识上帝从而作出对上帝的判断。在神秘主义中(下面我将试图解释，神秘主义是单神主义的极端产物)，已经放弃从思想上认识上帝，取而代之的是体验同上帝的结合，在这种结合中上帝已经不复存在，因此也没有必要去了解上帝了。 体验同人的结合或者用宗教语言表达—同上帝结合决不是非理性的。相反正如阿尔贝尔特?施魏策尔*(*阿尔贝尔特?施魏策尔(1875-1965)，德国的神学家、音乐家、医生和哲学家，他长期在非洲行医，一生致力于和平事业，提倡人道主义，；一九五四年获诺贝尔和平奖金，在欧美享有极高的声望。—译者注)强调的那样是理性主义最勇敢和最激进的结论。得出这一结论的基础是因为我们认识到我们大脑获取的知识是有一定限度的，而且这种限度决非偶然。另外我们还知道，我们永远不可能靠智力来了解人和宇宙的秘密，但可以通过爱情去把握它。心理学作为一门科学有其局限性。就像神学的逻辑结论是神秘主义，心理学的最终结论就是爱。 关心、责任心、尊重和了解是相互依赖的。在成熟的人身上可以看到这些态度的集中表现。成熟的人就是指能够创造性地发挥自己力量的人。成熟的人只想拥有他自己的劳动果实，放弃了获取全力和全知的自恋幻想，并有一种谦恭的态度。这一态度的基础是他内心的力量，单单这股力量就能使他进行真正的、创造性的劳动。 上面我提到的爱情是指克服人的孤寂和实现人与人的结合。除了这个普遍的、关系到人类生存的要求外，还有一个更具有生物性的要求：那就是阴性和阳性的结合。这一两极结合的思想在下面的神话中表现得最为明显：男子和女子本是一体，但这一体被分为两部分。从那以后男性那部分就开始寻找丢掉了的女性那部分，为了重新和她结合成一体。(在圣经中也有类似的说法，即夏娃是亚当身上的一根肋骨所造。很明显这个故事表明了按照父系社会的思想体系，女子从属于男子。)这一神话的意义是一目了然的。性别上的差别迫使人们 寻找一种特殊方式的结合，即同异性的结合。阴性和阳性这两极也表现在每个男子和每个女子身上。从生理上来看，男子和女子都有异性的荷尔蒙，与此相适应从心理学角度来看他们也都是双性的。他们都具有接受和渗透，物质和精神的原则。男子和女子只有在阴阳两极结合中才能找到内心的统一。阴阳两极是每种创造性劳动的基础。 阴阳两极也是人与人之间的生产力的基础。这一点很明显地表现在精子和卵子的结合是生儿育女的基础这一生物现象上。从纯心理角度来看亦是如此：在男子和女子的爱情中，双方都获得新生。(同性恋爱的变异是达不到两极结合所造成的，因此同性恋爱者永远不会脱离孤独的折磨。同性恋者同不能施爱的异性恋者，都实现不了两极的结合。) 阴阳两极的原则在自然界不仅存在于动植物之中，也存在于两个基本作用的对立之中，即接受的作用和渗透的作用。这就是大地和雨，河流和海，黑夜与白昼，黑暗和光明，物质和精神。伟大的伊斯兰教的诗人和神秘主义者鲁?米*(*鲁?米，波斯神秘主义诗人和伊斯兰教苏非派毛拉维教团的创始人。—译者注)非常优美地表达了这一点： 事实上寻求爱的人不会不被所爱之人所寻求。 如果爱情的明灯照亮了这颗心，它也必然会照亮那颗心。 如果对神的爱在你心中滋长，那神也会加爱于你。 一只手拍不响。神的圣明是命令，是他的决定让我们相爱。 天意使世界的每一部分同另一部分成双作对。 在圣人的眼里天空是男子，大地是女子：大地接受天空掉落之物。 大地如果缺少温暖，天空给予之；大地如果失去滋润，天空给予之。 天空的行踪犹如丈夫的足迹，丈夫为了妻子在寻找食物。 而大地则操持家务；她帮助生命的诞生，抚养她所生之物。 把大地和天空看作是赋有智慧的生命吧，因为它们的行为同智慧的生命完全一样。 如果它们不能从对方得到欢乐，它们怎么能紧紧相偎如一对恋人呢？ 如果没有大地，花草树木又怎能生长？ 天空的水和温暖又能带来什么？ 神在男子和女子身上播种传宗接代保存世界的愿望，神也在生命的每一部分播种要求同另一部分结合的愿望。 白昼和黑夜表面看来是敌人，但它们却都是为了一个目标；因为相爱就是为了完成共同的事业。 没有黑夜，人的生命就一无所得，以至于白天也无物可给。 ⑧ 阴阳两极的问题引起了对爱和性的进一步讨论。我前面已经提到过弗洛伊德的一个错误，那就是他认为爱情只是性本能的表现或升华，而没有认识到性要求是人渴望爱情和与人结合的一种表现。但是弗洛伊德的错误还不仅限于这一点。弗洛伊德根据他的生理唯物主义的观点认为性本能是体内化学反应引起的一种压力的结果，这种压力会引起不适，所以要得到释放。性要求的目的就是要消除这种折磨人的压力。按照这一说法性要求就象是一种使人引起痒感的刺激，而性满足就是要消除这种刺激。按照这种性理论，最理想的性满足就可能会是手淫，是性的自我满足。但弗洛伊德没有看到性的心理—生物性一面，没有看到阴阳两极以及要求通过结合消除这两极对立的要求。弗洛伊德之所以会犯这一奇怪的错误是同他的极端父权思想有关，这一思想促使他得出性本身是阳性的结论，以至于使他认识不到性的阴性成分。他的这一观点在他的《性学十三论》中得到阐明。他认为性欲一般来说具有“阳性的性质”，不管是男子的性欲，还是女子的性欲。他的这一观点还以更简单的形式出现在他如下的理论中。他认为一个男孩体验到的女人是一个被阉割生殖器的男人，而女人只是通过不同的方式企图寻找她丢失的男性器官的代用品。但是女人不是一个被阉割生殖器的男人，女性的性欲不是阳性的性质，而是阴性的性质。 两性之间的性吸引力仅仅只有一部分是以消除生理上的压力为动力的，但主要的动力是两性都有同另一个性别相结合的要求。事实上性爱的吸引力决不仅仅表现在两性的吸引力上。性欲的性质以及性作用都是既具有阳性也具有阴性。阳性的特点是渗透、指导、积极、守纪律和善于冒险，而阴性则具有接受、保护、求实、忍耐和母性的特点。(不应该忘记这两种性质的标志在每个人身上都会出现，只是侧重点不一，有的阳性特点多，有的阴性特点多。)如果一个男子的男性从感情角度来看始终保持一个孩子的水平，他就会想方设法通过在性生活方面过分强调他的男性而平衡这一缺陷。唐?璜就是一个例子。他总要在性方面证明他男子的力量，这恰恰是因为他对自己的男性产生怀疑。如果这种男性的衰竭变成极端，那施虐癖—施用武力—就会以一种变态方式取代男性。如果女性减弱或者变态，就会出现受虐癖。 人们指责弗洛伊德过分强调性的作用，他们这么做常常是为了否认弗洛伊德学说在传统观念圈子里引起反对和批评的那部分理论。弗洛伊德非常了解其中的奥妙，所以他不遗余力地反对每一种企图改造他的性理论的作法。弗洛伊德的理论在当时确实具有强烈的挑衅性和革命性。但是在1910年是革命的东西，五十年以后就不一定是革命的。性风俗在这五十年中发生了巨大的变化，今天弗洛伊德的理论就是在中产阶层也不会引起人们的惊骇。所以如果正统的精神分析学家直至今日还因其维护弗洛伊德的理论而把自己视为是勇敢和激进的话，那这就是一种虚构的激进主义了。实际上他们的这种激进主义正是他们迎合潮流的表现，他们根本不试图去提出心理学的一些关键性的问题，因为这些问题会引起对现代社会的批判。 我对弗洛伊德的批评并不是因为他过分强调性的作用，而是因为他没能深刻地理解性的作用。他从他的哲学观点出发，把性解释为是生理性的，所以很有必要把弗洛伊德的发现从生理的范畴转换到生存的范畴中去，并进一步发展他的理论。⑨ ----