第089集 ... 西蒙·德·波伏娃 - 《第二性》

欲获取更多信息及完整播客文本，请访问philosophizethis.org。了解最新剧集动态，请关注Instagram账号@philosophizethispodcast（连写）或推特账号@iamstevenwest。祝好，希望你喜欢今天的节目。每当我制作这类内容时，最担心的就是你们听完节目后毫无收获，未曾质疑自己原本对当周讨论话题的认知。若只是探讨某位冷门的新柏拉图主义哲学家，这倒容易实现。

For more information and full transcripts of the podcast, check out philosophizethis.org. For updates about new episodes, check out Instagram at philosophize this podcast, all one word, on x @iamstevenwest. Be well, and I hope you love the show today. So whenever I make one of these things, my absolute worst nightmare is for you to come out on the other side of the episode having not learned anything, having never questioned what you already thought you knew about whatever topic we're discussing that week. Now this is a pretty easy task to accomplish, and we're just talking about some obscure Neoplatonist philosopher.

对吧？假设你是新柏拉图主义博物馆的清洁工，或许还能从这期节目中获得些许新知。但像今天要讨论的这类主题则更具挑战性——当话题如女性主义这般无处不在时，每位听众都已形成自己的观点。他们基于过往人生经历，早已对女性主义有了既定认知。更棘手的是，很少有人能对此话题保持完全中立的态度。

Right? I mean I mean, sure to you being somebody that scrubs toilets at a Neoplatonist museum every day, there's probably gonna be some sort of novelty you can get out of that episode. But topics like the one we're gonna be talking about today are a little bit more difficult because when it comes to a topic that's as ubiquitous as feminism is, each and every person listening already has their own ideas. They they already have their own snapshot of what feminism is based on all the prior experiences they've had with it throughout their life. And what makes it even more difficult is that there there's not many people out there that are just sort of ambivalent about the topic, excited to hear about it.

事实上，此刻所有听众都与女性主义有着深切的情感联结。多数情况下，女性主义要么是你最亲密的盟友，要么是你最激烈的对立面。因此就像我们讨论神学主题时那样，今天我也请大家暂时搁置已知的女性主义观念，以开放心态参与讨论。请将你的女性主义观点想象成一顶帽子。

Fact is everyone listening to this right now currently has a very personal relationship with feminism. And most of the time, feminism's either your best friend in the world or one of your worst enemies. So for the sake of the episode today, just like when we do one of these episodes on god and I ask you to try to forget everything that you already think you know about god so we can have an open minded discussion without bringing too many biases to the table. Today, I'm gonna ask you to take your views on feminism and think of them as like a hat. Let's just take that hat off.

暂且把它摘下来放在桌边。别担心，我不会偷走你的帽子。节目结束后它仍会在原处，你大可重新戴上继续生活。

Set it over here on the table. Don't worry. I'm not gonna steal your hat. Still gonna be there when we get done with the episode. You can put it right back on and go on about your day when it's all over.

但在接下来的约三十分钟里，让我们先把这顶帽子搁置一旁。我们将探讨被视作人类史上最宏大解放运动之一的思想根基——第二波女性主义。快速说明：第二波是什么意思？他所谓的'波'指什么？

But for the next thirty minutes or so, let's just set that hat over to the side. Let's talk about the philosophical underpinnings of what is largely considered to be one of the most massive liberation movements in the history of the world, the second wave of feminism. Now real quickly, second wave. What does that mean? What's he talking about waves?

现代女性主义在美国及多数西方国家的发展历程，通常被划分为若干'浪潮'——即进步迅猛推进后又趋缓的特定时期。这些阶段往往伴随着重大突破。主流观点认为女性主义已历经三次大浪潮，也有人主张我们正处于第四波。或许历史终将确认这点。

Well, the history of modern feminism in The United States and most of the Western world for that matter is typically broken down into things called waves or these periods of time where where progress surges forward rapidly and then slows down for a bit. Periods of time where massive breakthroughs occurred. Now most commonly, people think of feminism in terms of three big waves that have happened. Some people say we're currently in the fourth wave of feminism. Maybe when the history books are written, that'll be the case.

但为便于今日讨论，我们暂以三次浪潮为框架。第一波女性主义的萌芽可追溯至十九世纪初，不过人们通常特指妇女参政运动取得的突破性进展，具体年份因国家而异。

But for the sake of the episode today, let's just think of it in terms of three. Right? Now you can see examples of the first wave of feminism way back, really all the way back to the beginning of the eighteen hundreds in some cases. But when people reference the first wave, most of the time they're talking about the breakthroughs made during the women's suffrage movement. Exact years depend on the specific country you're talking about.

但总体而言，早期这场浪潮确保了诸如女性选举权、《权利与情感宣言》等成果，其进步势头一直延续至二战后的数十年间。那时，继续主张女性角色就该整天待在家打扫卫生的观点已难以自圆其说。想想看，那可是二战时期。当世界尚未远离全面战争状态，当无数健壮女性还在工厂日夜不停地生产坦克、火炮、飞机、弹药等赢得战争的关键物资时，再支持那些剥夺女性教育与就业权利的法律，难免显得荒唐可笑。这便引出了第二波女性主义的开端，以及一位被视为该运动奠基人之一的女性——说真的，她当之无愧。

But in general, this wave in the early years secured things like women's right to vote, the declaration of rights and sentiments, and it continued to make progress all the way to the decades following World War two when it started to become very difficult to justify the idea that the role of woman is to just stay at home sweeping the floor all day. I mean, it was World War two. When you're not that far removed from a world where total war is being declared, when you're not that far from times when practically every able-bodied woman was working tirelessly in factories every day to produce all the tanks, artillery, aircraft, ammunition, all the vital things we need to be able to win the war, again, you you can start to feel a little bit ridiculous supporting a law where women don't have access to education or jobs. This brings us to the beginning of the second wave of feminism, and a person considered to be one of the the the founding mothers of the second wave. And really, come on.

或许我有些偏心，因为她堪称我心目中的英雄。但可以说第二波思潮中的所有理论，本质上都建立在西蒙娜·德·波伏娃《第二性》奠定的基础之上。无论你愿意给予她多少赞誉，这本书的影响力无可争议。哲学家很少能在有生之年亲眼见证自己的思想对文化产生的深远影响——而这本书正是这样罕见的存在。

Well, maybe I'm being a little bit biased because she's a she's kind of a hero of mine. But there's a case to be made that any other idea put forward during the second wave is ultimately building on the foundation that Simone de Beauvoir laid out in her book, The Second Sex. Now regardless of how much credit you wanna give her, the book's influence was undeniable. I mean, it's not often that we see a philosopher's work that is so relevant and so compelling during its time that the person that wrote it is actually able to see the effects that their ideas had on culture during their lifetime. This is one of those times.

这种情形何其罕见？我觉得通常只有当有人揭露了某种明显不公、且亟待解决时才会发生。这何尝不是一种独特的天才？如今女性主义远非能被简单概括的单一教条，其内涵极其微妙复杂。

I mean, when does that happen? I I feel like the only time you do see it happen is when there's some sort of obvious injustice that somebody points out and something needs to be done now. That's a special kind of genius, I think. Now feminism is far from a single doctrine that can be distilled down into a single tagline. It's incredibly nuanced.

各种思想流派相互竞争，目标虽略有差异，但都基于一个看似无可争议的前提：无论出于何种原因，纵观历史，女性从未享有与男性同等的权利与机遇。任选一个方面——无论是教育机会的缺失，被视作丈夫附属品而非独立个体，还是政治话语权或选举权的剥夺——女性处境始终无法与男性比肩。

A lot of different competing schools of thought. They're all aiming for slightly different goals. But they're all based on what seems to be a pretty uncontroversial statement to make that, for whatever reason, women have not had the same rights or opportunities that men have had over the course of history. Pick whatever one you want, whether it's not having access to education, whether it's being considered a a piece of your husband's property rather than a self, whether it's not being able to have a political voice or the right to vote. Whatever one you wanna pick, women have not had the same opportunities as men.

当有人初次直面这种现实时，起初难免困惑。脑海中浮现的第一个问题必然是：为何有人要这样做？显然，若某个文明将半数潜在智力资源直接贬为整日吸尘、烹饪廉价餐点的家庭主妇，这种文明无疑是自我削弱的。这种决策者似乎全然不顾文明的整体利益。

Now when you're somebody that's hit with that reality for the first time in your life, it's gotta be a little confusing at first. I mean, the first question that must pop into your head is why would anyone wanna do that? I mean, it seems clear that a culture that takes 50 of their potential brainpower and immediately relegates into a status of staying at home, vacuuming the floor, cooking hamburger helper all day. It it seems like that culture is a weaker culture for having done that. It seems like this decision wasn't made by somebody that had the best interest of the culture in mind.

或许他们另有所图，又或许这根本非人力所为。正是在这个问题上，各派女性主义哲学开始分道扬镳——究竟谁或什么该为历史上女性权利与机会的缺失负责？

Maybe they had some other interest in mind. Maybe it wasn't a decision that somebody made at all. This is the place where a lot of schools of feminist philosophy diverge. It's in their answer to this question. Who or what is responsible for women not having the same rights or opportunities that men have had throughout history?

相关理论汗牛充栋，绝非非黑即白。整个光谱上遍布着立场各异的女性主义者。

And there's tons of theories about this. Right? It's far from black and white. There's a whole spectrum. You see feminists falling pretty much everywhere on it.

一些女性主义者认为，并非某个特定的人或群体对此负有责任。只是时代变了。我们曾生活在截然不同的时代，狩猎采集时代，那时性别分工有其必要性——女性留守家中，确保下一代繁荣；通过操持家务，让体力更强的男性伴侣能投入更多时间获取有限资源，这提高了她的生存几率，也增加了他带着当天猎获的无头海狸回家的概率。关键在于，这是一种共生关系。而当文明发展起来后，女性就该留守家庭、男性就该外出征服世界的观念呢？

Some feminists believe that it's not that there's a particular person or group of people that's responsible for it. It's just, you know, times have changed. We used to live in very different times, hunter gatherer times, times when it behooved us to have certain gender roles where the woman would stay at home and she didn't share that the next generation was gonna prosper, and that by taking care of everything on the home front, that allowed her physically stronger male counterpart to spend more of his time securing some of the limited resources at their disposal, which increased her odds of surviving, which increased his odds of coming home with that particular day's headless beaver. Point is, it was a symbiotic relationship. And when civilization started to come along, the idea that women just stay at home and men just go out and try to impose their will on the world?

我们从未真正思考过这个问题。这只是那些未被质疑的性别规则的自然延续。这些女性主义者会说，现状绝对是错误的。女性理应享有平等权利和机会。我们应竭尽全力纠正这种不公。

We didn't really think about it. It was just sort of a natural extension of those gender rules that we never questioned. These feminists would say, it it's absolutely wrong that that's the case. Women deserve equal rights and opportunities. We should be doing everything we can to try to fix it.

但或许这并不是某个群体对女性发起的协同压制。作为对比，存在这类女性主义者的同时，还有另一些女性主义者坚信存在某种性别主义的秘密组织——就像顶层男性在密室会议中操纵历史木偶线，代代相传那本厚重的皮革典籍，将女性禁锢为无声的性爱机器人兼清洁工。这两种观点可能都包含真相，但西蒙娜·德·波伏娃的立场介于两者之间。简言之，她认为男性为垄断经济和个人权力地位而蓄意压迫女性——但这并非全貌。要理解其观点细节，我们需要探讨几个哲学概念，其中之一称为'主客体二元论'。

But maybe it wasn't a concerted effort leveraged upon women by some group. Now just as a point of contrast, you have that kind of feminist, and then there's other feminists that literally believe in some sort of, you know, like a like a sexist illuminati, you know, like a like a cabal of men at the top at backroom meetings, pulling the puppet strings throughout history, and they pass this giant leather bound book down from generation to generation so they can keep women, these voiceless sex robots that clean up after them. Now either one of these may be the truth, but Simone de Beauvoir tends to fall somewhere in between. To put it simply, she thinks that the subjugation of women was done deliberately by men in the interest of having a monopoly over all the positions of economic or personal power, But that really doesn't tell the whole story. To understand the details of her position, we have to talk about a couple different philosophical concepts, one of which is something called the subject object dichotomy.

还记得我们讨论笛卡尔时吗？当笛卡尔审视世间万物并试图归类时，他将事物划分为两种类型：主体或客体，思维或广延，心灵或物质。对笛卡尔而言，事物要么是主体（如你我的思考心灵），要么是客体（如椅子或手推车等具有空间维度却无法自主选择的物质实体）。客体就像矗立在我们主体思维世界体验中的纪念碑。通俗地说：主体行动，客体被作用。

Remember when we talked about Descartes? Remember when Descartes looks out at everything that exists in the world and he's trying to find a way to organize it, and he arrives at the idea that things can be broken down into one of two types of things. Something is either a subject or an object, thought or extension, mind or matter. To Descartes, something is either a subject, a thinking thing, you know, the mind of an individual like you or me, or it's an object, something made of matter, something that has spatial dimensions but can't make choices, something like a like a chair or a a wheelbarrow, An object that becomes sort of like a a monument in our subjective thinking thing experience of the world. A nice neat way that people like to put it is that subjects act and objects are acted upon.

还记得那个理论吗？啊，那真是美好的旧时光啊朋友们。那时人们会明确告诉你自己是主体还是客体，这种区分意义非凡。可惜在笛卡尔与波伏娃相隔的几百年间，海德格尔等众多思想家重新审视了这个主客体理论——

Remember that? Well, that was back in the good ole days, my friends. Back back when things were better. Back when a man would tell you he's either a subject or an object, and it meant something back then. Unfortunately, over the hundreds of years between Descartes and Simone de Beauvoir, a lot of great thinkers have taken a look at this idea of subjects and objects, people like Heidegger, Folkholt.

这个话题或许值得单独做期节目。现在需要明白的是：随着人们对主客体关系的思考深入，事情开始变得微妙。主客体间不再像过去认为的那样泾渭分明。看看我们如何与客体互动；看看其他自视为主体的人如何成为你主观世界体验中的客体；

And well, we'll probably do an entire episode on it one day. The important thing we need to understand now is that as people thought more and more about this relationship between subjects and objects in the world, things started to get a little weird. It starts to look like there's not such a clear cut distinction between subjects and objects like we used to think. I mean, you look at how we interact with objects. You look at how other people that see themselves as subjects become objects in your subjective experience of the world.

看看你的主观体验如何依赖客体（比如具有空间维度却无法自主选择的身体）才得以存在。审视这一切时，主客体二元论似乎瓦解了——主体离不开客体，客体离不开主体。它们相互依存。我们的存在本身注定我们同时是主体也是客体。

You look at how your subjective experience is only made possible by an object, meaning something with spatial dimensions and can't make choices, you know, your body. You look at all this stuff, and there doesn't seem to be a subject object dichotomy. Subjects can't exist without objects, and objects can't exist without subjects. There's an interconnectedness to it. Our existence guarantees that we are simultaneously both subject and object.

但如果你能将主体性从某人身上剥离，他们会变成什么？这是个非常简单的数学题，朋友们。我是说，主体与客体减去主体等于——没错，只剩下客体。

But what if you could remove the subject from someone? What would that make them? It's very simple math problem, folks. I mean, subject and object minus subject equals that's right. And object.

我真是太幽默了。他们成了客体。他们就是客体。仅仅是个客体。这才是重点。

I am hilarious. They're an object. They're an object. Just an object. That's the point.

成为被操纵的存在。就像椅子或手推车那样。供我们坐或随意使用的工具。这就是所谓的物化人类。西蒙娜·德·波伏娃会说，纵观世界历史，无论是残暴的独裁者还是帝国主义政权，每当人们被奴役时，奴役方都会系统性剥夺他们的主体性。

Something that's acted upon. Something like a chair or a wheelbarrow. Something that we sat on or used for whatever purpose you wanna use it for. This is what is called objectifying a person. Simone de Beauvoir would say that when you look at the history of the world, anytime, whether it was a ruthless dictator, an imperialistic regime, anytime people have been enslaved, the party responsible for enslaving them has systematically removed their subjectivity.

他们将这群人物化，这样就能心安理得地像对待手推车般对待他们。幸运的是——对我们而言，或许对正在聆听的未来独裁者们也是，拿起纸笔吧，我未来的赞助人——哲学已为你们准备了简明指南，详述各种物化人类的'创意'方式。共有七种，我正从斯坦福哲学百科上读到这些。

They've objectified this group of people so they don't gotta feel so bad about treating them like they're a wheelbarrow. Now lucky for us, and I guess lucky for any aspiring dictators out there that may be listening, get your pen and paper, my my future benefactor. Lucky for you, philosophy has created a concise field manual for all the fun creative ways that you can objectify a person. There's seven of them. I'm reading this from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

我会在本期对应页面附上链接。我坚决拒绝称之为'节目注释'。永远不会这么叫。第一是工具化：将人视为实现物化者目的的工具。第二是自主性剥夺。

I'll link to it in the page that corresponds with this episode. I I I refuse to call it show notes. I will never call them show notes. Number one is instrumentality, the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes. Number two is the denial of autonomy.

对待人如同其缺乏自主或自决能力。第三是惰性化：对待人如同其缺乏能动性。第四是可替代性：将人视作可与其他物件互换的存在。

Treatment of a person is lacking in autonomy or self determination. Number three is inertness. Treatment of a person is lacking in agency. Number four, fungibility. Treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects.

第五是边界消解：对待人如同其缺乏完整性边界。第六是所有权——这可是重点：将人视为可由他人拥有的物品，意味着可被买卖。

Number five, viability. Treatment of a person as lacking in boundary integrity. Number six, ownership. That's a big one. Treatment of a person is something that is owned by another, meaning that they can be bought and sold.

第七点是否认主体性。将一个人视为无需考虑其世界体验和感受的存在。这些正是你剥夺他人主体性、将其沦为纯粹客体的手段。我相信听完这些，你们能回顾历史中人们被奴役的各个时刻，至少能识别出其中一种用于物化他们的策略。甚至就在日常生活中，你也能在周围世界里观察到这种现象。

And number seven is the denial of subjectivity. Treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings of the world need not be taken into account. So these are the ways that you remove that subject from someone and turn them into merely an object. And I'm sure hearing those, you guys can look back at various points throughout history where people have been enslaved, and you can spot at least one of those in the tactic that was used to objectify them. I'm sure you can even just see it in the world around you in your everyday life.

对吧？比如有个男人可能正坐在沙发上看电视。他看到音乐视频里有个女孩挑逗地跳舞，就可能把她视作一块肉——满足物化者目的的工具。同样，女孩也可能把男人看作一坨肌肉块——

Right? For example, a guy might be sitting on the couch watching TV. He sees a girl provocatively dancing in a music video, and he may look at her as though she's just a a piece of meat as a tool for the objectifier's purposes. Right? A girl might look at a guy like he's just a a blob of muscle.

就像是为我搬运重物的叉车，再次成为物化者目的的工具。在波伏娃的伦理学中，自由是我们应当永远追求的目标。对她而言，这意味着我们在这个世界上从事的任何事业、做出的任何决定都非常简单：要么让自己和他人离自由更远，要么让自己和他人离自由更近。

You know, this forklift that's supposed to carry heavy objects for me. Again, a tool for the objectifier's purposes. Now in the ethics of Simone de Beauvoir, freedom is something that we should be always striving for. And what that means to her is that any project we undertake, anything that we decide to do in this world, it's very simple. It's either getting yourself and other people further away from freedom, or it's getting yourself and others closer to freedom.

正如之前讨论的，自由不仅仅是能走上街去便利店买包奥利奥。它还关乎理解你为何想上街买奥利奥。因为若不明白这个'为何'，你可能正被无数过程奴役着——广告、成瘾，任何事物。关于这种追求自由的过程，有一点是确定的：它绝非被动过程。想想那些腿上戴着镣铐的奴隶——

As we talked about before, freedom is not just being able to walk down the street, go to the convenience store, buy a bag of Oreos. It's also about understanding why you want to walk down the street and buy a bag of Oreos. Because if we don't understand the why, you may be enslaved to any number of processes, advertising, addiction, anything. Now one thing's for certain about this process of becoming free, it's not a passive process, is it? I mean, think of somebody that's physically enslaved with a shackle around their leg.

若只是被动接受奴隶生活，你永远无法挣脱那些锁链。不，这需要行动，需要革命，需要你拥抱并展现那个被物化者剥夺的、你深知自己拥有的主体性。

You're not gonna free yourself from those chains if you're just sort of passively going along with your life as a slave. No. It it takes action. It takes revolution. It takes you embracing and showing that subjectivity that you know you possess that was robbed from you by the person that objectified you.

需要你将意志强加于世界。在波伏娃看来，可悲的是，保持主体性的整个过程会消耗大量精力。成为主体需要付出巨大努力，需要大量阅读。如今还有谁真正读书呢？成为主体实在太难了。

It takes you imposing your will upon the world. Now the bad part about this, to Simone de Beauvoir, is that that whole process of being a subject, that burns a lot of calories. There there's a lot of effort involved in being a subject, a lot of reading. And who reads anymore, really? It it's hard being a subject.

正因其艰难，波伏娃会说人类常受诱惑，宁愿牺牲主体性而趋向成为客体。成为客体很容易——永远不思考任何事，从不从事为他人创造价值的工作，不去了解所处的政治经济环境。甘愿做被奴役的客体如此轻松，因为它卸下了你追求真正自由的责任。换言之，我们既是主体又是客体的事实造成了这种张力。

And because it's so hard, Simone would say, human beings often have this temptation to sacrifice their subjectivity and move towards just being an object. It's easy to be an object. It's easy to just never think about anything, never get a job that produces much value for people, never educate yourself about the political or economic climate you live in. It's so easy to just be an object that's enslaved because it takes away that onus that you have to strive for true freedom. In other words, there's tension created by the fact that we are both subject and object.

西蒙·德·波伏娃认为这种张力令人着迷。她希望能够研究它。于是她创建了两套行为模式，分别体现了作为主体与客体的这种张力的两面。她将这两套行为模式称为超越性与内在性。超越性体现了作为世界主体所具备的所有美德，而内在性则体现了作为世界客体所伴随的所有美德。

Simone de Beauvoir thinks this tension is fascinating. She wanted to be able to study it. So she creates two collections of behaviors, each one of them respectively embodying one side of this tension of being subject and object. She calls these two behavior sets transcendence and immanence. Transcendence embodying all the virtues that go along with being a subject in the world, and immanence embodying all the virtues that go along with being an object in the world.

超越与内敛。成为超越者意味着追求自由，接受教育并理解自由，展望未来，将意志施加于世界，拥有强大的话语权。而成为内敛者则与之相反——意味着停滞不前，被动顺从，自我抹杀，谦逊退让，沉默失语。

Transcendent and imminent. To be transcendent is to strive for freedom, to be educated and understanding freedom, to reach out into the future, to impose your will upon the world, to have a strong voice. To be imminent is to be the opposite of that. It's to be stagnant. It's to be passive, submissive, self effacing, modest, voiceless.

现在请思考一下：你更愿意成为哪一种？更倾向于超越还是内敛？若朋友向你寻求人生建议，你会推荐他们选择哪种生存方式？更超越还是更内敛？

Now think about that for a second. Which of those would you rather be? Would you rather be more transcendent or imminent? If one of your friends asks you for advice on how to live their life, which would you tell them to be? More transcendent or more imminent?

你认为我们讨论的这些存在主义哲学会给出怎样的建议？想想看——他们强调本真地活着，主张严格审视自身思想，摆脱世界观带来的自我禁锢枷锁。他们反复谈论的不正是自由吗？

What sort of advice do you think these existentialist philosophers we've been talking about would give? Well, let's think about it. They they talk about, you know, living authentically. They talk about rigorously doing an inventory of your thoughts and freeing yourself from the self imposed chains that come with the way that you look at the world. They talk a lot about freedom, don't they?

沉溺于有限性时，你并不自由——你正被某种文化惯性盲目奴役；迷失于无限性时，你同样不自由——决策过程的枷锁使你丧失行动力。当你依据萨特的'自欺'模式生活时，你便被自己编织的便利叙事所奴役。

When you're lost in the finite, you're not free. You're enslaved by some aspect of culture that you're just blindly going along with. When you're lost in the infinite, you're not free. You're incapable of taking action because you're enslaved to the process of decision making. When you're living your life based on Sartre's bad faith, you are enslaved to some convenient story that you're telling yourself.

关键在于，所有这些成为真我而非过客的途径，不都涉及超越性美德吗？绝非内敛品质。试想脚踝戴着镣铐时，挣脱锁链需要你展现超越性——主动出击影响世界，绝非内敛地退缩、被动、顺从、沉默。对吧？现在注意核心论点——

Point is, all of these different ways of becoming a true self rather than a passenger, they all involve these transcendent virtues, don't they? Not imminent ones. Again, if you have a shackle around your ankle, freeing yourself from those chains involves you being transcendent, actively going out there and imposing yourself upon the world, certainly not imminent, sitting back, passive, submissive, voiceless. Right? Now here's the key point.

西蒙·德·波伏娃会指出：多么'巧合'啊——超越性特质全被视作男性气质，而内敛特质则都被归为女性气质。她观察同时代女性，发现几乎所有人都被剥夺受教育权和工作权。不，女性的角色就是留守家中操持家务，被动顺从，永远屈从于拥有最终话语权的男主人意志。

Simone de Beauvoir would say, how convenient that transcendent qualities are all the qualities that we see as masculine qualities, and the imminent qualities are all the ones we see as feminine. She looked around her at the women of her time and realized that practically every one of them is relegated to the status of not having an education, not having a job. No. The woman's role is to stay at home and and clean stuff. The woman's role is to be passive and to always yield to the man of the house who has the final say, to submit to the will of the man.

大声发表意见或在餐桌上争论政治问题，这不符合淑女风范。不够谦逊也不像淑女所为，明白吗？约翰逊太太，你做的这些饼干真不错。哦，不。

It's not ladylike to be loud and opinionated or to argue politics at the dinner table. It's not ladylike to not be modest. You know? These are some great cookies you made here, missus Johnson. Oh, no.

不，你太客气了。我只是随便做的。真的没什么。不值一提。

No. You're too you're too nice. I just throw them together. It's really nothing. It's nothing.

说‘没错，这些饼干确实很棒’也不够淑女。县集市上得了第三名呢。非常感谢。

Not ladylike to say, yeah. Damn right. Those are some good cookies. Third place at the county fair. Thank you very much.

我得了一条绶带。他们为我的饼干颁了绶带。知道吗？有时候我一个人在家，喜欢戴着那条绶带在屋里走来走去。这就是我的小癖好。

I got a ribbon. They gave me a ribbon for my cookies. You know what I do sometimes when I'm at home alone? I like to wear that ribbon around the house. Just that's what I do.

这很不淑女。在这个女性被默认应当待在家里保持沉默的世界里，女人被赋予了所有这些与生俱来的特质。如果她连选择是否收敛锋芒的权利都没有，本质上就被迫陷入了一种权力严重失衡的关系。想想看，如果某天丈夫决定和秘书搞外遇，女人能怎么办？

Not very ladylike. And in this world where it's the role of the woman in a relationship to stay at home and just keep quiet, in that world, the woman embodies all of these imminent characteristics. And if she doesn't have the choice of whether or not to be less imminent, she's essentially forced into a relationship with a really lopsided balance of power. I mean, think about it. If one day the guy decides he wants to start sleeping around with the secretary, what can the woman really do about that?

她没有受过教育，没有经济独立能力，完全受制于丈夫。她真正有什么选择？要么忍受丈夫出轨，要么... 还能怎样？

She doesn't have an education. She doesn't have financial independence. She she is completely at his mercy. What choice does she really have? I mean, she has to decide whether she's satisfied with her husband sleeping around or or what, really.

离开他？搬回父母家住？再找个男人依附？她的主体性在哪里？她改变世界的能力在哪里？

What she she leaves him? Moves back in with her parents? I mean, find some other guy to be dependent on? Where's her subjectivity? Where's her ability to impose herself upon the world?

她超越的能力在哪里？西蒙·波伏娃会说，我们通常认为的女性特质是一种社会建构。这种社会建构是以精心计算的方式创造的，目的是确保女性保持被奴役的状态。剥夺她们的主体性，将她们变成客体，一个玩偶。西蒙说，我们常常给小女孩玩偶玩耍，这有点可笑，因为这某种程度上预示了她们长大后将要扮演的角色。

Where's her ability to transcend? Simone de Beauvoir would say that what we commonly think of as feminine qualities are a social construct. A social construct created in a calculated way to ensure that women stay enslaved. To remove their subjectivity and make them into an object, a doll. Simone says we often give little girls dolls to play with, and it's kinda funny because it sort of foreshadows what their role is gonna be when they get older.

你的职责就是打扮得漂漂亮亮，把头发梳得一丝不苟，然后安静地待在角落里，屈从于任何当时想玩弄你的人的意志。她说，你不是生来就是女人，而是被塑造成一个女人。她说，女性是两种不同历史的副产品。一种是我们历史书上谈论的历史，你知道的，她出生的文化背景，迄今为止对女性角色的期待。

Your job is to get dressed up, comb your hair just so, and keep quiet over there in the corner while bending to the will of whatever wants to play with you at that moment. She says, you're not born a woman. You're made to become one. She says, women are the byproduct of two different histories. One is the history that we talk about in history books, you know, the the cultural context she was born into, the expectations about the role of woman that have been laid out so far.

第二种历史是她个人的历史，她的童年，她的成长经历，在那里所有这些女性特质，这些关于她应该如何行为的期望，被父母、朋友、家人、老师、所有人强行灌输给她。有人谈到科学家研究父母与小男孩和小女孩互动方式的差异，看起来人们对男孩和女孩的互动方式有明显不同。显然，人们在管教男孩时更可能严厉和强势。他们更可能与小男孩一起跑来跑去玩耍，你知道的，妈妈的小猴子。而对于女孩，父母更可能给她像填色书这样的东西，你知道的，一些安静的消磨时间的东西。

The second history is her own personal history, her childhood, her upbringing where all these feminine qualities, these expectations about how she should be behaving are forced fed into her by her parents, friends, family, teachers, everyone. One talks about studies that they've Scientists look at the way that parents interact with little boys versus little girls, and it seems like there's a clear difference between the way that people interact with boys versus girls. Apparently, people are much more likely to be firm and aggressive when they're disciplining a boy. They're much more likely to run around with the little boy and play with him, you know, mama's little monkey. Whereas with girls, parents are much more likely to give her something like a a coloring book, you know, something quiet that passes the time.

当她做任何好事时，他们更可能告诉她她是个漂亮的小女孩。给她这种重复的暗示，即她的价值和人们对她的看法直接与她看起来有多好相关。这样的差异例子不胜枚举。西蒙说，不要低估这对这些孩子成年后行为的影响。现在事情变得比这更疯狂。

They're much more likely when she does anything good to tell her that she's a beautiful little girl. Giving her this repetitive cue that her worth and the way that people view her is directly connected to how good she looks. There's tons of examples of these differences. And Simone's saying, don't underestimate the effect that this has on the behavior of these kids when they become adults. Now it gets crazier than that.

我的意思是，想一下这个。那些给孩子这些暗示的父母并不是坏人，他们并不是在积极地边缘化女性。不是的。他们只是按照他们父母的方式行事。在他们眼中，这就是你对待小女孩的方式。

I mean, think about this for a second. Like, it's not like the parents that are giving these kids these cues are bad people that are trying to actively marginalize women. No. They're just doing it how their parents did it. In their eyes, this is just how you treat little girls.

在我们的文化中，女孩就是这样行为的，男孩就是这样行为的。但这从何而来？谁创造了这种人们应该如何行为的标准？如果西蒙是对的，认为这是某种有组织的行动，将女性变成这些顺从的客体，那么男人是在哪里组织这个的？我的意思是，他们是不是有一天开了某种制宪会议，把这些事情都搞清楚了？

This is how girls behave in our culture, this is how boys behave. But where did that come from? Who created this standard of how people are supposed to be behaving? And if Simone's right that this is some sort of organized operation to make women into these submissive objects, where did men organize this? I mean, did they have some sort of constitutional convention one day where they figured all this stuff out?

西蒙·波伏娃会说，根本原因，使男人有可能创造这种女性特质标准的，发生在很久很久以前，在一个完全不同的世界。我们之前稍微谈到了那个世界。那个世界曾经是这样组织的，你的经济繁荣程度直接与你身体有多强壮相关。真的就是这么简单。我是说，看看。

Simone de Beauvoir would say that the root cause, what made it even possible for men to create this standard of what being feminine is, happened a long long time ago in a completely different world. We talked a bit about that world earlier. The the world used to be organized in such a way that how economically prosperous you were was directly related to how physically strong you were. It really was that simple. I mean, look.

你可能身高只有四英尺八英寸。你可能是世界上扔石头最厉害的人。你可能是最擅长用石头砸兔子并囤积大量食物的人。但如果一个六英尺十一英寸的家伙出现在你家门廊前，那些兔子现在就是他的了。从生物学角度看，男性在体力上对女性拥有巨大优势。

You could be four foot eight inches tall. You could be the the best rock thrower in the world. You could be the best in the world at throwing rocks at bunnies and just stockpiling a ton of food. But if some six foot eleven dude shows up on your front porch, those are his bunnies now. Now biologically, men have a huge advantage over women in the area of physical strength.

资源是有限的，这迫使女性不得不经济上依赖男性。随着时间的推移，男性掌控了资源，自然也就控制了政府。理所当然，是他们制定了关于女性行为规范的法律。自然，也是他们撰写描绘女性形象的书籍。

Resources are limited, and this forced women to have to be economically dependent on men. Time went on. Men controlled the resources, so naturally they control the government. Naturally, they're the ones who write the laws about what women are able to do. Naturally, they're the ones that write the books that depict women.

是他们定义了何为女性应有的行为。或许从未为此召开过正式的制宪会议，但男性一出生就面对着双重历史叙事：一边被告知女性的角色定位，一边享受着由此带来的政治经济特权。说真的，哪个以生存为本能的生物不渴望掌控自身存在的某些方面呢？

They're the ones that talk about what it means to behave as a woman behaves. Maybe there was never an organized constitutional convention for it, but men were born into a similar world of two histories. One where they were told what the role of women is, one where they enjoy having the fruits of all of this political and economic power. I mean, let's be real. What survival oriented creature doesn't enjoy controlling certain aspects about their existence?

男性发现自己生来就处于这种地位——最初通过体力优势，后来通过法律和文化体系——将女性禁锢在依附性客体的位置上。西蒙娜·德·波伏瓦在女性主义哲学家中独树一帜的原因之一，是她深入探讨了这种现象的根源。她给出了几个极具洞见的解释：男性之所以如此对待女性，是因为从能够实现超越性的角度而言，男性体现了哲学中常说的'自我'概念。

Now finding themselves born into this position, men, at first through physical strength and then systemically through laws and culture, kept women in this place where their role is to be dependent objects. One thing that makes Simone unique among feminist philosophers is that she talks a lot about the why of all this. She gives a few really interesting reasons for why men would do this to women. She says well, I mean, here's how she sets it up. She says, in the sense that men are capable of being transcendent, they personify this concept that we often talk about in philosophy called the self.

那么女性被置于何种位置？她们无法实现超越性，被判定为客体的存在。从哲学意义上说，女性并非真正的'自我'，而是某种异质性的他者。

But what does that make women? They aren't capable of being transcendent. They're sentenced to the status of being an object. Women aren't selves, really, in a philosophical sense. They're sort of this other thing.

她提出'女人是他者'的论断。她说'做人就等于做男人'，因为女性特质恰恰是'自我'所排斥的一切——被动、顺从、失语等等。这引出了她最犀利的观点：男性对女性实施压迫的深层心理动机，或许正是恐惧自己沦为被他们精心塑造的女性形象——对周遭世界逆来顺受、无力改变的奴隶。通过让女性具现这种'内在性'，掌控女性或许能让男性获得对抗内心最大恐惧的错觉。

She says woman is the other. She says being a human being seems to mean being a man, because being a woman is being this other thing, being this collection of characteristics that's everything that the self rejects, passivity, submissiveness, voicelessness, etcetera. This sets her up to make a a pretty interesting point, I think. She said that one of the main reasons why men might have done this to women is because deep down, their biggest fear is that they become what they've engineered for women to become, passive, submissive slaves to the world around them with no voice to really change it. Maybe by making women embody this imminence, when men have control over women, maybe they feel like they have control over that thing that they fear the most.

此刻或许有人会说：'明白了，西蒙娜，我理解你的出发点。女性特质是社会建构的产物，但这难道不是先有鸡还是先有蛋的问题吗？男性确实垄断了话语权，但他们究竟是凭空编造了被动顺从的女性形象，还是仅仅记录了女性与生俱来的行为模式？'

Now some of you may be saying, okay. I get it. I I get where you're coming from, Simone. Feminine traits are a social construct, but isn't this a little bit of a chicken or the egg thing, Simone? What I mean is, certainly men wrote all the books, but did men write books about passive, submissive women and engineer these feminine qualities, or did men just write books about the way that women naturally behave?

换句话说，是生活模仿艺术，还是艺术模仿生活？难道不能是女性天生就比男性缺乏竞争性吗？难道不能是女性更倾向于待在家里，打理巢穴，在Target买装饰手提包吗？难道不能是女性更关心抚养孩子而非改变世界吗？这是问题的核心关键所在。

In other words, is life imitating art, art, or is art imitating life? Couldn't it be that women are just naturally less competitive than guys are? Couldn't it be that women just, like, staying at home more, tending to the nest, buying decorative totes at Target? Couldn't it be that women just care a lot more about raising a child than they do about changing the world? This is a key question that's at the heart of the issue.

这是性别本质主义的问题。顺便说一句，快速澄清一下，提出这种问题的并非只有那些认为女性比男性弱小的人。不，女性主义思想家也有持此立场的。存在差异女性主义者，他们会说：为什么我们总要假装所有人永远相同？

It's the question of gender essentialism. And by the way, real quick, it it's not like the only people that would ask a question like that are people that believe women are weaker than men. No. Feminist thinkers fall on that side of it too. There there are differentialist feminists, and they'd be the kind of person that would say something like, you know, why do we gotta pretend like everyone's the same all the time?

为什么我们要假装男女完全一样？不，认为男女可能天生具有不同本质、不同倾向性，从而解释男女行为的巨大差异，这种观点既不疯狂也不性别歧视。差异女性主义者可能主张我们应该拥抱这些差异——法律面前隔离但平等。

Why do we gotta pretend like men and women are exactly the same thing? No. It's not a crazy belief. It's not a sexist belief to think that maybe men and women are born with different essences, different predispositions that account for the vast differences between male and female behavior. Differentialist feminists might say that we should embrace these differences, separate but equal under the eyes of the law.

对吧？所以当你看到那些谈论只有1%的CEO是女性、我们该如何改变的研究时，有些女性主义者会说这不是识别性别歧视的合理方式。毕竟男女从本质上就是不同的。你不能根据有多少女性在做男性想做的事来衡量平等。

Right? So when you look at one of those studies that talk about how only 1% of CEOs are women, and what are we gonna do to fix it? Some feminists would say that's not a very reasonable way to go about identifying sexism. After all, men and women are, by their very nature, different. You can't gauge equality based on how many women are just doing what guys wanna do.

或许出于某些原因，当女性拥有所有选择机会时，她们会选择与男性不同的职业道路。西蒙娜·波伏娃更倾向于平等主义女权主义者或那些认为我们确实存在某些生理差异的人。是的，这些差异导致行为上的某些差异，但它们绝对无法解释文化对男女行为期待之间存在的巨大鸿沟。女性气质是一种社会建构，而非女性与生俱来的特质。这是关键所在。

Maybe for whatever reason, when women have all the options available to them, they just choose different career paths than men do. Now Simone Bavoir would fall more on the side of egalitarian feminists or people that think, yes, we do have certain biological differences. And, yes, those differences account for a certain variance in behavior, but they certainly don't explain the massive chasm that separates how culture expects men and women to behave. Femininity is a social construct, not something imbued into women at conception. That's a key point.

记住，西蒙娜·德·波伏娃是存在主义者。她相信存在先于本质。她不相信某种预先决定的人格特质或本质属性造就了你的本质。思考人们在回答这些问题时可能采取的不同立场，这很有趣，对吧？

Remember, Simone de Beauvoir is an existentialist. She believes that existence precedes essence. She doesn't believe in some sort of preordained set of personality traits or essential properties that make you you. You know, it's interesting to think about all the different places people might fall in answering these questions. Right?

我的意思是，我经常遇到认同'人的本质并非预先注定'这一观点的人。他们同意存在先于本质。但在同一场对话中，他们又会提及性别，并说类似'女孩天生就是这样'、'男孩天生就是那样'的话。这很有趣。

I mean, I often run into people that agree with the notion that there is no preordained essence to what they are. They they agree that existence precedes essence. But in that same conversation, they'll reference gender, and they'll say something like, that's just how girls are. That's just how guys are. It's interesting.

这让我想起人们常讨论人性的方式。对吧？他们会说，看看历史，看看我们血腥的过去。人类天生就是自私、好战、不关心同胞，并尽可能征服更多土地。

Reminds me of how people often talk about about human nature. Right? They'll say things like, look at history. Look at our bloody past. It is obviously just human nature to be selfish and warlike and to not care about your fellow man and to conquer as much land as you possibly can.

但请稍作思考。有趣的是想象另一种人类历史——如果主导社会的不是男性而是女性，世界历史会有多大不同？如果所有权力位置都由这些被动、谦逊、顺从的人占据，战争还会如此频繁吗？当我们谈论人性时，女性不也占所谓人性的另一半吗？

But think about that for a second. What's interesting to think about is imagine human history where instead of men being predominantly at the helm of society, imagine it was all women now. How different would the history of the world be? Would there be as much war if we had these passive, modest, submissive people in all the positions of power? When we say something like human nature, aren't women half of whatever that human nature thing is?

所以好战只是男性的天性吗？此外，女性真能因较少好战而居功吗？我的意思是，她们是否只是被社会驯化成被动顺从？如果女性从出生起就接受与男性相同的暗示，她们会变得同样好战吗？还是她们存在某种本质上的不同？

So is it just the nature of men to be warlike? Also, can women really take credit for being so much less warlike? I mean, haven't they just been conditioned to be passive and submissive? Would women be just as warlike as men if they were fed the same cues from birth that boys are? Or is there some essence to their being that would have made it different?

难道她们的本质就是偏爱Bath and Body Works的肉桂香薰蜡烛？这其中是否存在某种特质？只是些值得思考的问题。如今西蒙娜·德·波伏瓦的余音仍在回荡，世界与她撰写《第二性》时已大不相同，这确实印证了她的伟大。

Is there some essence to their being that just makes them like cinnamon candles from Bath and Body Works? Is is there something there? Just some questions to think about. Now the echoes of Simone de Beauvoir still ring out to this day, and the world is a very different place now than it was before she wrote The Second Sex. Really is a testament to her greatness.

当然，如今女性在平等权利和机会方面已取得巨大进步。现代对话中萦绕的问题是：我们还需要取得多少进展？是的，目前的成就很棒，但前路还有多远？或许更准确的问题是：如何精确量化一次性别歧视事件？

Now, certainly, there's been tons of progress made in terms of women having equal rights and opportunities. The question that sort of pervades the modern dialogue is how much more progress still needs to be made? I mean, sure. It's great how far we've come, but how much further do we have to go? Or I guess the better question is, how can you accurately quantify one instance of sexism?

因为当今世界与波伏瓦时代已截然不同。那时，你可以轻易指认那种明显的被剥夺生活方式的压迫——女性被边缘化的事实非常清晰。当然，我这里指的是西方世界。

Because the world's a very different place now than it was in the time of Simone de Beauvoir. Right? I mean, back then, you could easily identify and point at what was a very obvious forced lifestyle of being disenfranchised. I mean, it was very clear back then that women were being marginalized. In today's world and, of course, I'm talking about the western world here.

对吧？向所有仍坚守在第二波 feminism 尚未触及地区的女性致敬。在当今世界，问题已不像当年那样显而易见。如果存在问题，那也是更加隐蔽、更加 covert 的。

Right? Shout out to all my ladies out there holding it down in places that the second wave hasn't reached yet. In today's world, it's it's not as obvious as it was back then. The problem in today's world, if there is one, is much more insidious. It's covert.

它存在于选民的心中。它存在于那些主导行业或在这些领域招聘的人心中，这些人允许他人将自己的意志强加于世界。例如，如果你是一名女性，你想成为一名科学家，想进入这些可以施展你卓越才能的领域。你非常聪明，有出色的工作经历、推荐信、博士学位，一应俱全。你去参加面试，通过了初试，他们筛选出四位候选人。你等待了几周，几周后他们告诉你，抱歉，你没有得到这份工作。

It exists in the minds of the voters. It exists in the minds of people that are at the head of industry or hiring for these fields that allow someone to impose their will upon the world. For example, if you're a woman and you wanna be a scientist and you wanna be one of these fields where you can exercise your transcendence, And you're really smart, and you have a great employment history, and letters of recommendation, PhD, the whole thing. And you go in for an interview, and you pass the initial interview, and they narrow it down to four applicants. You wait around for weeks, and after weeks waiting, they tell you that, sorry, you didn't get the job.

我们不得不选择另一个方向。两周后你在Facebook上发现这份工作给了一个男人。这就是现代社会中性别歧视的阴险之处。做出这个招聘决定的人，他可能是个性别歧视者。毫无疑问。

We're gonna have to go in another direction. You find out on Facebook in two weeks it was given to a man. Here's the insidious nature of sexism in our modern society. The guy making that hiring decision, he could be sexist. No question.

可能是你的申请和另一个男人的申请对比后决定的。他可能看了两份申请后说，你们知道吗，伙计们？我不想这里有人整天哭哭啼啼的。如果我想看人哭，回家看我老婆就行了。我说得对吧？

It could've come down to your application and the other guy's application. He could've looked at them both and said, you know what, boys? I don't want somebody crying all the time around here. If I wanted somebody crying, I go home to my wife. Am I right?

他可能走到那个男人面前说，老兄，你知道吗？你的简历很棒，工作经历也很出色，但我想我们都知道你为什么能得到这份工作，兄弟。永远忠诚。永远忠诚，兄弟。碰个拳。

He could've went up to the other guy and said, you know what, man? You got a great resume, great work history, but I think we both know why you're getting this job, brother. Semper fi. Semper fi, brother. Fist bump.

他可能做了所有这些事。但另一方面，也许那个男人确实更合适。也许他就是比你更胜任。这造成了一种局面，你余生都可能认为没得到那份工作只是因为别人比你更优秀，而实际上，只是因为招聘者是个隐形的性别歧视者。但反之亦然。

He could've done all that stuff. But on the other hand, maybe the other guy was just a better fit. Maybe he was just more qualified than you were. This creates a dynamic where you can assume for the rest of your life that the only reason you didn't get that job is because somebody else is more qualified than you, when in reality, it was just that the guy doing the hiring was a covert sexist. But the inverse is also true.

对吧？这造成了一种局面，你余生都可能认为没得到那份工作只是因为你是女性，而招聘者可能只是认为另一个申请人更胜任。在这两种情况下，借用威廉·詹姆斯的话说，你对实际发生的意识体验没有任何改变。唯一改变的是你推断那个人脑子里在想什么。我认为这就是现代女权主义者的困境。

Right? It it creates a dynamic where you can go the rest of your life thinking the only reason you didn't get that job was because you're a woman when the guy may have just thought that the other applicant was more qualified. Now in both these scenarios, a la William James, nothing changes about your conscious experience of what actually occurred. The only thing that changes is what you're inferring is going on inside that guy's head. This is the plight of the modern feminist, I think.

当你通常需要推断他人的动机时，如何可靠地量化一次性别歧视行为？我...我真的认为这就是为什么在我们的社会中，当有人说了一些话，哪怕只是接近可能被解读为性别歧视的内容，猎巫行动就开始了。然后举证责任就落在了那个人身上。他们被称为性别歧视者，被视为性别歧视者，现在他们的任务是说服所有人他们不是性别歧视者。但无论如何，显然我们还可以就这个话题做更多期节目。

How do you reliably quantify one bout of sexism when it usually relies on you inferring somebody else's motives? I I I honestly think this is why it's so common in our society when somebody says something, and if it even comes close to resembling something that you could even interpret as sexist, then the witch hunt begins. Then the burden of proof is on that person. They're called a sexist, thought of as a sexist, now it's their job to convince everybody of why they're not a sexist. But anyway, there's many more episodes we can do on this subject, obviously.

归根结底，这取决于你们想从我这里得到什么。给我发封邮件，告诉我你们想听什么内容。可以把它看作民主进程中的一票，它将决定下一期节目的主题。或许我可以这样总结：显而易见的是，女性主义的未来面临着独特的挑战，但我认为西蒙娜·德·波伏娃的天才及其对世界的影响依然无可争议——无论你认为这个问题比以往任何时候都更隐蔽、更难以量化，还是认为现状比过去任何时候都要好。

Just comes down really to what you people want from me. Send me an email requesting what you wanna hear about. Think of it as one vote in a democratic process that will create what the next episode is. Maybe I could sum it up like this. What seems clear is that the future of feminism has its own unique challenges, but I think the genius of Simone de Beauvoir and her impact on the world, I think that remains unchallenged, whether you think it's more insidious and difficult to quantify than ever before or whether you think the problem is better than it ever has been.

在这位毕生仍有太多东西要学习的谦逊观察者看来，或许两者兼而有之。感谢收听，我们下次再聊。

I guess in the mind of this humble observer that still has tons more to learn in his life, maybe it's both. Thank you for listening. I'll talk to you next time.