在“道德婊”沦为众矢之的的今天，令人担忧的并不是人的伪善，而是内心生活词汇的贫瘠。人是被意识形态武装后的猴子（monkey with ideologies），更是不断求索意义的群居动物（meaning-seeking animal）。如何把合理的道德诉求言之有物地表达，一方面避免被意识形态过度左右，另一方面做到有所坚持，不轻易向道德相对主义（moral relativism）低头？如何做到既不教条又不犬儒？当我们厌倦了空乏的政治口号，也许是时候寻找一位俗世版的犹太拉比、基督牧师、当代新儒家，道出生活的质地纹理，填补意义的真空。《纽约时报》专栏作家大卫·布鲁克斯（David Brooks）就是这样一种存在。
在他的畅销书《品格之路》（The Road to Character）中， 布鲁克斯区分了人的两个自我。一个是简历里的自我，那个渴望成功，迎合市场需求的自我；一个是悼词里提到的自我，那个看中人际交往、团队、爱的自我。一个野心勃勃，要去建造、征服、享受成就，座右铭是“成功”；另一个谦逊自律，关心内心世界，座右铭是“爱，拯救和回报”。一个是简历美德（Resume Virtue），一个是悼词美德（Eulogy Virtue）。哪一个更重要？不少人会选后者，但吊诡的是，更多的人把时间花在了前者。如何使这两种自我达到平衡，这是布鲁克斯要回答的问题。
布鲁克斯在TED讲解
简历美德 vs. 悼词美德
（双语文本见最后）
布鲁克斯于芝加哥大学毕业，如今也是芝大校董之一。本科期间的他置身书海，沉迷尼采、洛克、柏拉图，修历史专业也修独身主义（major in celibacy）。从一个社会民主派（Social democrat）青年，逐渐走向保守主义（Social conservative）中年，钟情于埃德蒙·伯克（Edmund Burke），被《华盛顿邮报》E.J. Dionne认为是美国最后一个辉格党人（Whig），一个集汉密尔顿-亨利·克莱-林肯（Hamilton-Henry Clay-Abe Lincoln）于一身的具有建设性的保守派人士。在布鲁克斯的骨子里，流淌着对道德诉求的热烈（Moral fervor），虽然他个子不高，像个文弱书生，声音略低沉羞涩。他是一位诗人，他的《纽约时报》专栏旁征博引、文字洗练、读者众多，也被不少酸他的学究派认为是高级鸡汤。他将基督教的教义用通俗的语言凝练表达，堕落（fallenness）、破碎（brokenness）、败坏（depravity）这些基督教术语，在他笔下是错置的爱（disordered love），对流俗的爱（love of popularity）胜过了友谊（love of friendship）。对道德生活的热忱，让他的文字力透纸背；人们内心世界词汇的贫乏，在他笔下可以找到救赎。
本期羊说，我向布鲁克斯先生讨教了特朗普所谓的“要回控制权”（taking back control）。在中美贸易摩擦升温的今天，中国除了要把握机会，进一步开放市场，降低关税壁垒，也要理解存在于美国政治中的两种世界观。布鲁克斯先生，以非常“芝大式“的方式回答了我，清晰可感的文字里渗透了思想史的视角。是富足心态（abundance mentality），还是患寡逻辑（scarcity mentality）？是零和博弈，还是携手共赢。修昔底德陷阱不仅仅是因为无序秩序下的大国博弈，也来自于人心和世界观。当下守成的美国和崛起的中国要保持和睦，必须审视这种患寡心态，在进攻现实主义（offensive realism）的框架内，添加一点道义考量。
对话文稿
David Brooks
Duration: 5:17
Interviewed 2/19/2018
YANG: Thank you, Mr. Brooks. So one thing I found in populist politicians is that they're very good at co-opting two ideas associated with democracy. One is fairness, the other one is the idea of popular sovereignty, which has the refrain of "taking back control." This has the evidence in Brexit and Trump's rhetoric on border enforcement. But this "taking back control" public discourse is so prevalent in the United States, that if I compare it with other emerging economies in face of the big forces, they talk a lot about adaptation rather than taking back control. So do you think this "taking back control" mentality is a symptom of what you mentioned—loneliness and the crisis of meaning? Or should we just pursue this taking back control and fulfill what democracy is all about?
向杨：你好，布鲁克斯先生。我在民粹政客的身上看到的一点就是，他们很善于笼络与民主政治相关的两个理念。一个是公平，另一个是主权在民，就是常说的“要回控制权”。这在英国脱欧和特朗普的加强边控论调里都有迹可循。但是这种“要回控制权”的论调在美国实在是太有市场了，如果对比其他崛起的新兴国家，面对变革的几股力量，这些地方的人大多持“与时俱进”的态度，而不是要回控制权。那你认为这种“要回控制权”的思路是不是你刚才提到的——孤独和意义危机的症状？还是说我们只需追逐这种要回控制权就好，从而实现民主之所是？
DAVID: So I would say it's a symptom of the underlying—what Trump would call the "carnage." And you can go into the world with two mentalities: an abundance mentality or a scarcity mentality. And if you come from a certain moral tradition, you go into the world with an abundance mentality and applied state of nature of the Garden of Eden, and there's enough to go around, and that we can welcome other people because there's—we can—life is not zero-sum, it's "yes, and." But if you have a different mentality, then your mentality is scarcity. It starts with sort of a Hobbesian worldview, in that life is basically a struggle over resources that are zero-sum. And when you have that mentality, the first thing you do is everything is friend-enemy distinction, which is if you watch Trump talk or Viktor Orban or the Brexit people, it's all friend-enemy distinctions. It's always "us or them," it's always a warrior mentality. And that leads to a sense of apocalyptics.
大卫：我觉得这是一种潜在的症状，属于特朗普所谓的“美国大屠杀”。（注：特朗普发表的就职演讲中，自造了一个极其阴暗的词语“美国大屠杀”，严厉斥责在华盛顿特区的两党政治精英，认为他们听任内陆城市在“犯罪、帮派和毒品”中溃烂。主流媒体认为特朗普的就职演说太过毛骨悚然，更像是他在竞选时那一些列聒噪的演讲翻版，远不及他前任们的雄辩演说。）你在现实世界里有两种心态可选：一种是富余心态，一种是患寡心态。如果你来自某个遵从道德传统的地方，那你可能就是持富余心态，习惯了伊甸园式的自然生活状态。物资充裕，也乐善好施，因为在那里——生活不是你争我夺的零和游戏，而是“可以，并且”但如果你有的是另一种心态，就是霍布斯式的世界观，认为生活在于资源的争夺，一种患寡心理。那你首先做的就是，一切都要弄成敌我分明才行。看看特朗普讲话，或是匈牙利总理奥班，或是支持英国脱欧的人，都是这种敌我分明的感觉。总是把“我们和他们”分得很清。总是一副要战斗的样子。这就会产生一种末日感。
What's been interesting to me, especially going around the Trump country—but I also think it's true on the Left—the idea "if they win, we're doomed." You know, I'm not a huge Democratic supporter, haven't voted for too many Democrats in recent years, but if Hillary Clinton wins, you know, she's a normal person. She'd do things I'd disagree with, but it's not the end of the republic. For a lot of Trump supporters, it absolutely is the end of the republic, what they call the Flight 93 election. "The plane's going down, we have to do something desperate." And so you get that kind of an apocalyptic mindset and then out of that, you get a strong communal sense, and for people who have no sense of community, that gives them a very strong communal sense. And one of the things that has struck me about the Republican party is that if you asked Republicans about 15 years ago, "Is being white part of your identity?" Fifteen years ago, 13 percent said yeah. They didn't think about it much. Now, 57 percent say yeah. And so they've glommed on to an identity. And my basic view of the whole Trump phenomenon is he is the wrong answer to the right question. That there is a lot of scarcity out there—they're responding to things for a reason, and their reasons are basically legitimate. But to me, they've gone off into a self-destructive way. But they feel a total alienation from their institutions, as a lot of people do, but maybe with a little bit more cause.
我觉得有趣的是，特别是在特朗普上任后在美国走走的话。但我也认为，左派的确是抱着同样的一种心态，就是“他们要赢了，我们就惨了。”你也知道，我并不是民主党的坚定拥护者，最近几年也没怎么给民主党投过票。但如果希拉里赢了，她是个正常的人，虽然她会做一些我不认可的事，但那并不意味着共和制就要完了。但对特朗普的很多支持者来说，那可绝对意味着共和制就要完了。他们所谓的93号航班选举。（注：特朗普的拥护者Michael Anton在The Claremont Review of Books发表的文章，认为美国的共和制不幸登上了“93号航班”，飞机正在朝向坠毁的线路运行；飞机被自由派、共和党的自由派“帮凶”以及支持全球化的“达沃斯族”裹挟。Anton认为，2016年如果选了希拉里，等于选了半自动的俄罗斯轮盘赌，最后93号航班上的“全体乘员”将一起逐渐走向毁灭；而如果选了特朗普，至少转盘还是由你启动，可以赌一把。文章开头写到: “2016 is the Flight 93 election: Charge the cockpit or you die.”）“飞机在下坠，我们必须要做点什么。”然后就有了那种末日般的心态，在此基础上，又有了一种强烈命运共同体感，让那些没有命运共同体意识的人，也就突然间有了这种强烈的感觉。有一件关于共和党的事让印象深刻。15年前，如果你问共和党，“白人是不是你身份认同的一部分？”15年前，有13%的人回答是。他们也没怎么想过这个。而现在，57%的人觉得是。然后他们非常看重某种身份。我对这个特朗普及其影响的基本观点是，特朗普是作为一个错误的答案去回答一个正确的问题。我们身边有很多患寡心态的例子，它们存在是有理由的，这个理由本质上也是合理的。但在我看来，他们却走向了一条自我毁灭之路。他们感觉被体制完全疏离了，很多人都是这样感觉的，但他们可能原因更充分一点。
And the final thing I'll say, and it's germane to the news of the day, is there's an organization that's in my column somewhere called Better Angels. And they bring reds and blues together. They go from town to town and they find people who are pretty intense in their red and pretty intense in their blue. They bring them into a room, but the reds don't want to show up because they think, "I'm just gonna get beat up again. I'm tired of it." So they say to the conservatives, "We'll allow you to de-monsterize yourself." And they say, "Well, if you let me do that, I'll go." And one of the things they do in the meetings is each side says, "What are the stereotypes about you that the other side believes?" And for the reds, they always say first, "They think we're racists, and I'm not a racist. And I support this and this and this, but for other reasons." And so they feel this great weight of shame, which society, they feel, is imposing upon them.
最后我还想说，和今天的新闻有关。有个组织，出现在我的专栏里，叫“更好的天使”。他们在撮合共和党和民主党。他们挨个跑到不同地方去，找到那些特别坚定的共和党支持者和民主党支持者，然后把这些人带到一个房间，但是共和党支持者不想去，因为他们觉得“我去了肯定又会被数落一番。我受够了。”这个组织的人就对保守人士说：“你可以借此机会让别人不再视你为恶人。”保守人士说：“这样的话，我就去。”然后双方在见面后做的一件事就是，每一方都说一下：“对方对你都有哪些成见？”然后，共和党那边总是先说：“民主党认为我们是种族主义者，我不是的。我支持这个、这个、还有这个，但理由是其他方面的。”所以他们觉得背负着沉重的污点，觉得是社会在把这种耻辱感强加到他们身上。
And as a result, everything comes about that shame and that culture order, and I mention it now because we're having this debate about guns and I'm for every gun control thing you can imagine. But one of the things we've learned about the gun debate is that it's not really about guns anymore, it's a cultural symbol for people who think those at the top of society look down upon them. And somehow, to win that debate, you've got to de-culture war the thing and say, "Yes, we respect you. In fact, the gun control movement is going to be led by people you respect who are from your community." And then you can de-polarize it and actually have a conversation about guns rather than about, "Do you respect rural culture?"
结果就是，每件事都和耻辱感以及文化秩序有关。我这会儿说这个是因为我们在讨论枪支问题。只要是能管控枪支的，我都支持。但是我们从枪支问题辩论中学到的一件事是，辩论已经和枪支无关了。而是一种文化符号，持有枪支的人认为，社会上层说控枪的人蔑视了他们。不管怎样，要赢得这场辩论，我们需要走去除文化战争的路子，（注：文化战争，指传统保守派所持有的价值观与社会民主进步派所持有的价值相对立的局面）告诉对方：“是的，我们尊重你。事实上，枪支管控运动的领导者是你敬仰的人，来自你生活的社区。”然后就能去两极化，并真正地就枪支问题展开对话，而不是争论“你到底尊不尊重乡村文化？”
So that's a long University of Chicago answer to a quick question about [LAUGHTER] what I would call a scarcity mindset.
所以我用一个芝大式的长回复回答了一个短问题，[笑] 我对患寡心态就是这么看的。
TED演讲
为简历而活，还是为悼词而生
So I've been thinking about the difference between the résumé virtues and the eulogy virtues. The résumé virtues are the ones you put on your résumé, which are the skills you bring to the marketplace. The eulogy virtues are the ones that get mentioned in the eulogy,which are deeper: who are you, in your depth, what is the nature of your relationships, are you bold, loving, dependable, consistency? And most of us, including me, would say that the eulogy virtues are the more important of the virtues. But at least in my case, are they the ones that I think about the most? And the answer is no.
我一直在思考下面两者的区别， 简历美德和悼词美德。 简历美德是指那些你自己会写在简历上的优点， 这是一种在市场中生存的技能。 悼词美德是指那些会在 你的悼词中，别人提到的话。 哪一个更深刻：从内心深处来讲，哪一个才是你。 在人际关系中，你的本质是什么， 大胆的？深情的？值得信任的？还是稳重的？ 包括我自己在内的大多说人会说， 悼词美德会更加重要。 但是至少从我的角度来说，他们是 我认为的最重要的那个吗？答案是否定的。
So I've been thinking about that problem, and a thinker who has helped me think about it is a guy named Joseph Soloveitchik, who was a rabbi who wrote a book called "The Lonely Man Of Faith" in 1965. Soloveitchik said there are two sides of our natures, which he called Adam I and Adam II. Adam I is the worldly, ambitious, external side of our nature. He wants to build, create, create companies, create innovation. Adam II is the humble side of our nature. Adam II wants not only to do good but to be good, to live in a way internally that honors God, creation and our possibilities. Adam I wants to conquer the world. Adam II wants to hear a calling and obey the world. Adam I savors accomplishment. Adam II savors inner consistency and strength. Adam I asks how things work. Adam II asks why we're here.Adam I's motto is "success." Adam II's motto is "love, redemption and return."
所以我正在思考一个问题，并且一个思想家也在帮助我思考， 叫做约瑟夫，过去是一个犹太学者， 在1965年著有《有信仰的孤独人》。 索罗维奇可说到我们的本质可以分为两面， 他称之为亚当一号以及亚当二号。 亚当一号是世俗的，雄心勃勃的， 是我们本质外在的一面。 这一面想要去建造，去创造，创造公司， 创造革新。 亚当二号则是本质中谦逊的那一面。 亚当二号要求不仅要做好事，并且要成为好人， 去以一种内在的方式生活， 去尊敬上帝，创作，以及自我的责任。 亚当一号想要征服这个世界。 亚当二号想要倾听这个世界的呼唤并且遵循这个世界。 亚当一号尽情享受那种成就感。 亚当二号则享受内在的融合和赐予的力量。 亚当一号询问事情怎么运转。 亚当二号则关心我们为什么在这里。 亚当一号的座右铭是“成功”。亚当二号的座右铭是“爱，拯救和回报”。
And Soloveitchik argued that these two sides of our nature are at war with each other. We live in perpetual self-confrontation between the external success and the internal value. And the tricky thing, I'd say, about these two sides of our nature is they work by different logics.The external logic is an economic logic: input leads to output, risk leads to reward. The internal side of our nature is a moral logic and often an inverse logic. You have to give to receive. You have to surrender to something outside yourself to gain strength within yourself. You have to conquer the desire to get what you want. In order to fulfill yourself, you have to forget yourself. In order to find yourself, you have to lose yourself.
同时，索罗维奇可也思考过我们 这两种感情的相互斗争。 我们生活在一个不断进行自我抗争， 夹杂在外在的成功和内在的价值之中。 我认为更有趣的是， 我们的两种本质， 依照不同的逻辑运作。 外在逻辑方法是经济学的逻辑方式： 投入产出模式和风险回报模式。 我们内在的本质 是一种道德上的逻辑，通常是一种逆向逻辑。 你不得不用你的付出去获得。 你不得不先放弃你自身的外在的一些东西 去获得自己内在的力量。 你需要克服你想要的东西的欲望。为了使自己满足，你需要先忘记你自己。 为了去找到自我，你需要先失去自我。
We happen to live in a society that favors Adam I, and often neglects Adam II. And the problem is, that turns you into a shrewd animal who treats life as a game, and you become a cold, calculating creature who slips into a sort of mediocrity where you realize there's a difference between your desired self and your actual self. You're not earning the sort of eulogy you want, you hope someone will give to you. You don't have the depth of conviction. You don't have an emotional sonorousness. You don't have commitment to tasks that would take more than a lifetime to commit.
我们碰巧生活在一个支持亚当一号的社会中， 并且经常会忽视亚当二号。 那么问题就是，这会使你成为一个精明的动物， 一个把生活当做游戏的人， 并且你会成为一个无情的，爱计较的人， 最后堕落为庸人这一类， 直到那个时候你才意识到欲望里的自己 和真实的自己是有区别的。 你并没有得到你想要的悼词， 你希望别人可以给你。 你没有坚定的信仰。 你没有丰富的情绪。 你并没有一个要花费一生的 时间去实现的承诺。
I was reminded of a common response through history of how you build a solid Adam II,how you build a depth of character. Through history, people have gone back into their own pasts, sometimes to a precious time in their life, to their childhood, and often, the mind gravitates in the past to a moment of shame, some sin committed, some act of selfishness,an act of omission, of shallowness, the sin of anger, the sin of self-pity, trying to be a people-pleaser, a lack of courage. Adam I is built by building on your strengths. Adam II is built by fighting your weaknesses. You go into yourself, you find the sin which you've committed over and again through your life, your signature sin out of which the others emerge, and you fight that sin and you wrestle with that sin, and out of that wrestling, that suffering, then a depth of character is constructed. And we're often not taught to recognizethe sin in ourselves, in that we're not taught in this culture how to wrestle with it, how to confront it, and how to combat it. We live in a culture with an Adam I mentality where we're inarticulate about Adam II.
纵观历史我得到了一个相同的回答， 是告诉你怎样去建立一个坚固的亚当二号， 怎样去塑造一个有深度的性格。 回首过往，人们可以 看到自己的过去， 有时候是生命中很珍贵的某个时刻， 有时候是童年， 更多的，会吸引你的是 那些让你感到羞耻的瞬间， 一些犯错的时候，比如一些自私的举动， 一些欠考虑或者肤浅的行为， 一些愤怒时犯的过错，一些自怜自哀时的行为， 总是去迎合别人或者缺乏勇气的时候。 亚当一号是建立在堆砌你的优点上的。 亚当二号是建立在打败你的缺点上的。 当你走入自己的内心，你会发现那些在你生命中 犯了一次又一次的错误， 你最不能忘记的那个过错 会区别于其它的那些过错， 你会和那个过错做斗争，去努力克服那个过错， 当你从那些斗争和苦难中重生的时候， 也就是一个有深度的性格建立的时候。 同时，我没并没有经常被教导 怎么认识到自己的过错， 在现在的文化中我们也没有被教导怎么去和它们斗争， 怎么去面对它们并，如何它们斗争。 我们生活在一个有着亚当一号心理的社会中， 在这里我们很难表达亚当二号的思想。
Finally, Reinhold Niebuhr summed up the confrontation, the fully lived Adam I and Adam II life, this way: "Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own standpoint.Therefore we must be saved by that final form of love, which is forgiveness.”
最后，莱因霍尔德·尼布尔 用这种方式总结了生活中 亚当一号和亚当二号完全对立的这种存在： “没有一件值得一做的事情，可以在你的一生中完成； 因此我们必须用希望来拯救。 没有一样真实或者美丽的东西， 可以在历史的一瞬展现它的华彩； 因此我们必须用信仰来救赎。 没有一件事情，哪怕它是美好的，我们可以独自完成； 因此我们必须用爱来拯救。 没有什么善良的行为是完全的善， 不论是从朋友，敌人，或者我们自身的角度都是这样。 因此我们必须被完全的爱来拯救， 也就是用宽容。“