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.
我之前一直在思考 寫在簡歷的美德跟寫在悼詞中的美德的區別 顯而易見,放在簡歷中的優點 是你向公眾展示你的技能 然而,悼詞中出現的德行 那些人們在喪禮中提到的特質 你更深層的本質, 人際關係的模式, 你是否勇敢、有愛心、值得信賴、持之以恆? 大部分人中,包括我在內,會覺得 悼詞中的美德比其他形式的美德更重要。 但是依我看來,它們是我最常想到的嗎? 其實不是
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."
所以我一直在思考這個問題, 而一名思想家幫助了我 他的名字是約瑟夫 .斯洛維奇克,一名猶太神學家 他在1965年寫了一本書,名字叫《孤獨的信仰之人》 斯洛維奇克講述說每個人都有兩個特性 一個是亞當第一,另外一個是亞當第二 亞當第一是追逐名利,有野心的 代表我們表露的特性 亞當第一想建立事業, 開創創新。 亞當第二代表著人性中謙遜的一面 他不僅僅想做好事,而是想做好人, 這是一種内在的生活方式-- 敬重神明,這大千世界跟我們的無限可能。 亞當第一想要征服這個世界 亞當第二想要傾聽並服從內心的召喚。 亞當第一傾心於成就, 亞當第二欣賞內在的堅持與力量。 亞當第一會關心事情如何運作, 亞當第二會問”我們為何在這裡"。 亞當第一的座右銘是“成功” 亞當第二的座右銘是“愛,救贖與給予”
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.
斯洛維奇克認為, 人性的兩面會發生衝突。 我們生活在永久的自我對峙中: 外在的成功跟內在的價值是衝突的。 而對我而言最難以捉摸的事情, 人性的兩面 是靠不同的邏輯方式運轉的。 外在的邏輯是顧全經濟效益的邏輯: 輸入帶來輸出,冒險引導出獎勵。 我們的內在一面 是一種道德的邏輯,常常不合乎常理。 要施捨才能獲得。 你必須要放棄外在東西, 才能讓自己的內在更強大。 你要征服自私的欲望。 為了滿足你自己,你要去忘掉你自己 為了找到你自己,你要先去迷失你自己
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.
我們當今生活在一個對亞當第一有利的社會中, 並且經常疏忽亞當第二。 問題是,這讓人變成了精明的動物, 把生活當成了一場遊戲, 然後人們變成了一種冷酷,會算計的生物, 不知不覺的就變成了一個平庸的人: 你會發現你渴望的自己 和現實中的自己不大相同。 你不在積攢你想要的悼詞, 你希望其他人會給你的那種。 你沒有堅定的信念, 沒有動人的情感。 在那些需要花一輩子去經營的任務中, 你並沒有投身於其中。
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 recognize the 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.
這讓我想起歷史中常見的, 建造一個扎實的亞當第二的方法。 你怎麼去發掘亞當第二的深度 回歸歷史 人們回到自己的過去 回到很珍貴的那段時期,童年 經常 思緒會被牽引至過去的 曾經羞愧的那一刻, 回到你犯下錯誤的時候, 你自私自利的時候。 你忽略其他人的時候,淺薄的時候 生氣的時候 自憐自哀的時候 跟不停的取悅他人, 迷失自己的勇氣的時刻。 亞當第一 是在我們的優勢上建立而成 亞當第二 是在我們與我們的弱點戰鬥時建立而成 你要反省你自己, 找到你根深蒂固的罪惡, 那個最屬於你的, 帶來其他罪惡的根源。 然後你去與你的罪惡搏鬥 除了搏鬥以外 你要去忍受。 最後,深刻的個性才開始成形 我們沒有被教導如何學習認知 我們人性中的罪惡 我們在這個文化中也沒學習到 怎麼與我們的罪惡搏鬥 怎麼去面對罪惡 跟怎麼戰勝我們的罪惡 我們生活在一個崇尚第一亞當的社會中 也是對第二亞有者模糊概念的社會。
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.”
最後,雷茵霍爾德 尼布爾 對亞當第一和第二的對立 給予了這樣的總結: “沒有一件值得去做的事情,可以在你這一生中完成” “因此我們必須心存希望。” “沒有一件美麗,真實的東西,” “會馬上被人欣賞,” “‘因此我們要心存信念。” "我們不能獨自完成任何一件事情,就算是善意的," “因此我們要心存愛。” “所謂善意的事情," ”從朋友或敵人的角度看,“ ”都不比從自己的角度看來得善意。” “因此我們一定要心存這種最終的愛 --”
Thanks.
“原諒。“
(Applause)
謝謝!