評論
打印
For “Solitude” Netta Weinstein and Thuy-vy Nguyen, two psychology professors, have teamed up with Heather Hansen, a science journalist, to ponder the rewards of time spent alone.
在《孤獨》中，兩位心理學教授奈塔·韋恩斯坦和阮翠薇與科學記者希瑟·漢森合作，思考了獨處的好處。
They begin with an account of the mythology of solitude created by figures such as Michel de Montaigne, an essayist, and Edward Hopper, a painter.
他們首先講述了散文家米歇爾·德·蒙田和畫家愛德華·霍珀等人物創造的孤獨神話。
They then draw on laboratory work, interviews and surveys to illuminate how being alone really affects the human psyche.
然后，他們用實驗室研究、采訪和調查來闡明獨處如何影響人類心理。
It is common to treat loneliness and solitude as synonyms, but they are not.
把孤獨和孤單當作同義詞是很常見的，但事實并非如此。
The authors suggest that what is negatively portrayed as one state can be positively reframed as the other.
作者表明，被描述為消極狀態的情況可以被重新描述成另一種積極的情況。
To this end they emphasise the restorative possibilities of being alone and include practical guidance.
為此，他們強調了獨處可能有恢復的力量，并提供了實際指導。
In a noisy and crowded world, they argue, people should make time to be by oneself, away from attention-grabbing stimuli.
他們認為，在一個嘈雜擁擠的世界里，人們應該抽出時間獨處，遠離吸引注意力的刺激。
The book’s interviewees mostly regard a lack of company as conducive to autonomy.
這本書的受訪者大多認為，沒有人陪伴可以促成自主性。
But this depends on whether solitude is elective or enforced.
但這取決于獨處是可選擇的還是強制的。
If it is enforced, as it is for social outcasts and some prisoners, for instance, it is often wretched.
如果被強制獨處，比如對社會上被排斥的人和一些囚犯來說，獨處往往是悲慘的。
Elective solitude, by contrast, above all in natural settings, affords space for reflection.
相反地，選擇性的獨處，尤其是在自然環境中，為反思提供了空間。
It can open the door to “peak experiences” such as wonder, awe, harmony, even ecstasy.
它可以打開通往驚嘆、敬畏、和諧，甚至狂喜等“巔峰體驗”的大門。
(In a hyper-connected digital age, many readers may not fancy their chances of ever being unplugged long enough to have such experiences.)
(在一個高度互聯的數字時代，許多讀者可能不會希望為了能有這些體驗而在足夠長的時間內斷網。）
Pascal Bruckner sees a world shrinking from sociability in favour of snug seclusion.
帕斯卡爾·布魯克納認為，世界的社交性正在萎縮，人們更喜歡舒適地隱居。
“The Triumph of the Slippers” is grounded not in research but in the French tradition of witty social criticism.
《拖鞋的勝利》不是建立在研究的基礎上，而是法國詼諧的社會批評傳統之上。
Mr Bruckner, a philosopher and polemicist, dubs the present period “a Great Withdrawal”.
哲學家和辯論家布魯克納將當前時期稱為“大撤退”。
As he sees it, the openness of the late 20th century is over, and “the closing of minds and spaces is well under way.”
在他看來，20世紀末的開放已經結束，“思想和空間的關閉正在進行”。
People may like living in “authorised sloppiness”, yet it is hard to imagine heroes and trailblazers wearing dressing gowns: “While it’s nice to be comfortable, you can’t build a civilisation on softness.”
人們可能喜歡過一種“被許可的懶散生活”，但很難想象英雄和開拓者會穿著浴袍：“舒適固然好，但柔軟舒適無法讓你建立文明。”
With a mixture of playfulness and grandiosity, he describes a society where most tasks can be completed without leaving the house.
布魯克納以既打趣又浮夸的語氣，描述了一個大多數任務都可以在家里完成的社會。
His book overflows with soundbites—the public sphere, for example, is dominated by “orgies of pettiness”—and he peppers his short chapters with references to Nietzsche, Plato and Rousseau.
他的書中有許多簡短金句，例如，公共領域被“瑣碎的狂歡”主導，而且他在短小的章節中穿插了尼采、柏拉圖和盧梭的思想。
Though his argument spins off in many directions, Mr Bruckner’s main theme is the need for people to relearn the art of intimacy.
盡管布魯克納的論述從多個方向展開，但他的主旨是人們需要重新學習關于親密關系的藝術。
“Interactive solitude”, enabled by technology, is no substitute for “the great theatre of the world”.
科技帶來的“互動式孤獨”并不能取代“世界這個大劇院”。
Mr Bruckner supplies a checklist for warding off enduring, corrosive feelings of loneliness: “Have we loved enough, given enough, lavished enough, embraced enough?”
布魯克納列出了幾項事物用來抵御持久的、侵蝕心靈的孤獨感：“我們是否愛得夠多、給予得夠多、揮霍得夠多、擁抱得夠多？”
If these books are right, many readers will find themselves answering “No.”
如果這些書說的是真的，那么許多讀者會發現自己的回答是“不夠”。
