morality.

道德。

And in it, he talks about how some people use morality like a dog-leash to control others.

在這本書中，他談到了一些人如何利用道德像狗鏈一樣來控制他人。

They use morality to get people to do what they want.

他們利用道德來讓人們做他們想做的事。

It's an interesting idea with lots of implications, but I'm interested in exploring one particular

這是一個有趣的想法，有很多影響，但我對探索一個特定的問題感興趣

version of this idea: /playing the victim/. Someone who plays the victim is an example

這個想法的版本。/扮演受害者/。扮演受害者的人是一個例子

of someone who uses morality to gain power, and that's what I wanna explore in this

一個利用道德獲得權力的人，而這正是我想在這本書中探討的。

essay.

作文。

But before we can understand what it means to /play the victim/, we need to understand

但在我們能夠理解 "扮演受害者 "的含義之前，我們需要理解

what it means to be a victim.

成為一個受害者意味著什麼。

For this essay, we can define a /victim/ as /someone who is taken advantage of by another

在這篇文章中，我們可以將 "受害者 "定義為 "被他人利用的人"。

person/.

人/。

And we can call /the act of taking advantage of someone/ a /crime/.

而我們可以把/利用別人的行為/稱為/犯罪/。

And typically, what we want for all victims is /justice/.

而通常情況下，我們對所有受害者的要求是/公正/。

And /justice/, as discussed by Nietzsche, can be thought of as /giving back to the victim

而尼采所討論的 "正義"，可以被認為是對受害者的 "回饋"。

what was lost when the crime was committed/.

罪行發生時失去的東西/。

In other words, you can think of justice as /the repaying of debts/: the criminal must

換句話說，你可以把正義看作是/償還債務/：罪犯必須

repay the debt they acquired by taking advantage of the victim.

償還他們通過利用受害者獲得的債務。

I'm not saying this is what justice means, but this is a way many people understand justice,

我並不是說這就是正義的含義，但這是許多人理解正義的一種方式。

and this definition is important in the context of this video.

而這個定義在本視頻的背景中很重要。

So what does it mean to play the victim?

那麼，扮演受害者是什麼意思？

What separates a genuine victim from someone playing the victim?

是什麼將真正的受害者與扮演受害者的人區分開來？

A genuine victim was actually taken advantage of, but someone playing the victim wasn't.

一個真正的受害者實際上被利用了，但扮演受害者的人沒有被利用。

And how do you determine whether someone was actually taken advantage of?

而你如何確定某人是否真的被利用了？

It comes down to /consent/. Someone is taken advantage of when their presence is used in

這歸結為/consent/。當一個人的存在被利用時，他就被利用了。

a way they didn't agree to.

一個他們不同意的方式。

And so a true victim did not give consent or was not in a position to give consent,

是以，真正的受害者沒有給予同意，或者沒有能力給予同意。

such as in the case of a child or someone who was severely intoxicated.

例如在兒童或嚴重醉酒的情況下。

But someone who plays the victim gives legitimate consent and then claims they didn't.

但有人扮演受害者，給予合法的同意，然後聲稱他們沒有。

Or they claim /you/ consented to things which you didn't consent to or were not in a position

或者他們聲稱/你/同意了一些你不同意的事情，或者不在一個位置上。

to consent to.

同意。

I'll explore what both cases look like a little later on.

我將在稍後探討這兩種情況是什麼樣子。

So why would someone play the victim?

那麼，為什麼有人要扮演受害者呢？

To put it simply, they play victim so someone will save them from their problems.

簡單地說，他們扮演受害者，以便有人將他們從問題中拯救出來。

They're looking for a rescuer.

他們正在尋找一個救援者。

And how do they get people to save them?

他們又是如何讓人們來拯救他們的呢？

Someone who plays the victim has two main weapons: obligation and guilt, and pity and

扮演受害者的人有兩個主要武器：義務和內疚，以及憐憫和

disgust.

厭惡。

Let's take a look at the first weapon: obligation and guilt.

讓我們來看看第一種武器：義務和內疚。

Here, the person playing the victim claims that /you/ consented to things that you didn't

在這裡，扮演受害者的人聲稱/你/同意了你沒有同意的事情。

consent to or were not in a position to consent to.

願意或沒有能力同意。

They impose an obligation on you and make you feel guilty for not living up to the obligation.

他們把義務強加給你，讓你為沒有履行義務而感到內疚。

They try to coerce you into paying a debt that you did not consent to taking on.

他們試圖脅迫你支付你不同意承擔的債務。

Let's look at an example.

我們來看看一個例子。

At the age of 22, Jane's husband left her with their two sons: Jamie and Michael.

在22歲時，簡的丈夫帶著他們的兩個兒子離開了她。傑米和邁克爾。

Jane told herself that she would dedicate her life to her sons, and that in return they

簡告訴自己，她將把自己的生命獻給她的兒子們，而作為回報，他們將

would take care of her.

會照顧她。

/I will take care of them,/ she thought, /and in return, they can never leave me/.

/我將照顧他們，/她想，/而作為回報，他們永遠不能離開我/。

So keep that in mind: Jane is imposing an obligation on her sons.

所以要記住這一點。簡是在給她的兒子們施加義務。

She's binding them into a covert contract.

她將他們捆綁在一個祕密的合同中。

But they're children.

但他們是孩子。

They're not in a position to consent to such a contract.

他們沒有資格同意這樣的合同。

So how does this play out?

那麼，這種情況是如何發生的呢？

Jane will do anything for them as long as they don't leave her alone.

只要他們不放過她，簡會為他們做任何事。

But as they start growing up, naturally, they start wanting to live their own lives.

但隨著他們開始長大，自然而然地，他們開始想過自己的生活。

They want to spend time with their friends and lovers.

他們希望與朋友和戀人共度時光。

And anytime they want to leave the house, anytime they want to do something without

而且無論何時他們想離開家，無論何時他們想做什麼，都不需要

her, anytime she feels them creating some distance from her, their mom uses guilt and

只要她覺得他們與她產生了一些距離，他們的媽媽就會利用內疚和

obligation to make them stay.

有義務讓他們留下來。

She says, “after everything I've done for you, after all the time, energy, and money

她說，"在我為你做了一切之後，在所有的時間、精力和金錢之後

I've spent on you, you're just going to leave me?!

我在你身上花了錢，你就這樣離開我？

You are terrible sons!

你們是可怕的兒子!

You should be ashamed!”

你應該感到羞愧！"

But is this fair of Jane to do?

但簡這樣做公平嗎？

She imposed this contract on her kids—/I will take care of you as long as you never

她把這個合同強加給她的孩子們------我將照顧你，只要你永遠不

leave me/—when they were not in a position to consent to such a contract.

離開我/--當他們沒有能力同意這樣的合同。

And whenever they seem to threaten her contract, she uses guilt and obligation to force them

而每當他們似乎威脅到她的合同時，她就用內疚和義務來迫使他們

to comply again.

再次遵守。

Instead of handling the problem of loneliness in a mature and healthy way, she emotionally

她沒有以成熟和健康的方式處理孤獨的問題，而是在情緒上

blackmails her sons into rescuing her.

勒索她的兒子們來救她。

Now let's look at the second weapon someone uses when playing the victim: pity and disgust.

現在我們來看看有人在扮演受害者時使用的第二種武器：憐憫和厭惡。

Here, the person playing the victim claims that they did not give /you/ legitimate consent

在這裡，扮演受害者的人聲稱，他們沒有給/你/合法的同意。

when they actually did.

當他們真正做到了。

They're trying to claim they didn't give you legitimate consent so that others feel

他們試圖聲稱他們沒有給你合法的同意，以便讓其他人感到

pity for them and disgust for you.

對他們的憐憫和對你的厭惡。

If people feel pity for them, they get people on their side and increase the chances that

如果人們對他們感到憐憫，他們就會讓人們站在他們一邊，並增加機會

someone will come and rescue them.

有人會來救他們。

If people feel disgust for you, the person playing the victim turns people against you,

如果人們對你感到厭惡，扮演受害者的人就會讓人們反對你。

which will increase the chances that you submit to their demands.

這將增加你服從他們要求的機會。

Let's return to our example.

讓我們回到我們的例子。

So Jane's attempt to use guilt and obligation works on one of her sons, Jamie, but they

是以，簡試圖利用內疚和義務對她的一個兒子傑米起作用，但他們

fail to work on Michael.

對邁克爾的工作失敗。

Michael tells his mom that he's moving away to go to a good college.

邁克爾告訴他媽媽，他要搬走，去上一所好大學。

So what does Jane do when guilt and obligation fail?

那麼，當內疚和義務失敗時，簡會怎麼做呢？

She uses pity and disgust.

她用憐憫和厭惡。

She says to Jamie, the son who feels obligated to her, “can you believe Michael would do

她對傑米說，這個對她有義務的兒子，"你能相信邁克爾會這麼做嗎？

that to his own mother?

對他自己的母親這樣做？

He took all of my money and then left me all alone!”

他拿走了我所有的錢，然後把我一個人留在那裡！"

She makes Jamie feel pity towards her, increasing the chances he'll rescue her, and makes

她讓傑米對她產生憐憫之情，增加了他拯救她的機會，並使

him feel disgust towards his brother Michael, increasing the chances Jamie will abandon

他對他的兄弟邁克爾感到厭惡，增加了傑米放棄的機會。

Michael or coerce him into submitting to his mother's demands.

邁克爾或脅迫他服從他母親的要求。

But is it fair for Jane to claim that Michael took all of her money and left?

但簡聲稱邁克爾拿了她所有的錢就走了，這公平嗎？

Remember, Jane's contract is /I will take care of you as long as you never leave me./Jane

記住，簡的合同是/只要你不離開我，我就會照顧你。

was an adult when she chose to enter that contract for Michael, but Michael was just

當她選擇為邁克爾簽訂那份合同時，她是一個成年人，但邁克爾只是

a baby.

一個嬰兒。

Jane was capable of giving legitimate consent and did, but she expected a mutual consent

簡有能力給予合法的同意，也確實這樣做了，但她期待著雙方的同意。

from Michael that he wasn't in a position to give as a child.

從邁克爾那裡得到的是他作為一個孩子沒有能力給予的。

And even if Michael was able to give consent, he might not have wanted to enter into that

即使邁克爾能夠表示同意，他也可能不願意進入這個圈子。

contract with his mother—one where she supports him in exchange for him never leaving her

他與母親簽訂合同，母親支持他，以換取他永遠不離開母親。

alone.

獨自一人。

So she gave him legitimate consent to receive her support as a child, but now that he's

所以她給了他合法的同意，讓他接受她作為一個孩子的支持，但現在他已經

not meeting her demands, she's trying to claim that she never gave him consent and

在沒有滿足她的要求的情況下，她試圖聲稱她從來沒有給他同意，並且

that he took advantage of her.

說他佔了她的便宜。

That's just one example of someone playing the victim, but it can happen in many different

這只是某人扮演受害者的一個例子，但它可以發生在許多不同的場合。

types of relationships: between lovers, family, friends, or co-workers.

關係類型：戀人、家人、朋友或同事之間。

But everyone who plays the victim has one thing in common: covert contracts.

但每個扮演受害者的人都有一個共同點：祕密合同。

What's that?

那是什麼？

It's a hidden expectation of someone else.

這是對別人的一種隱性期待。

Remember, I said that a person can play the victim in two ways.

記住，我說過，一個人可以通過兩種方式扮演受害者。

The first way is that they can give you legitimate consent and then claim they never gave it

第一種方式是，他們可以給你合法的同意，然後聲稱他們從未給過你。

to you.

給你。

But why would they claim they didn't give it to you?

但為什麼他們會聲稱他們沒有給你呢？

Usually because they had a hidden expectation, a covert contract, which you didn't live

通常是因為他們有一個隱藏的期望，一個隱祕的合同，而你並沒有生活在其中。

up to.

到。

And so now they want to claim they never gave you consent to punish you or to make you fulfill

是以，現在他們想聲稱他們從未給你同意，以懲罰你或讓你履行

the hidden expectation they have.

他們所擁有的隱藏的期望。

The second way someone can play the victim is that they can claim /you/ gave consent

有人扮演受害者的第二種方式是，他們可以聲稱/你/給予了同意

when you didn't or were not in a position to.

當你沒有或沒有能力的時候。

In our previous example with Jane, the mother, she might say to her son Michael, “you were

在我們前面的例子中，母親簡可能會對她的兒子邁克爾說，"你是

never supposed to leave me!”

不應該離開我！"

But that was a hidden expectation, a covert contract, that Michael's mother had for

但這是一個隱藏的期望，一個隱祕的契約，邁克爾的母親對他的期望。

him.

他。

Michael never gave legitimate consent to that expectation.

邁克爾從未對這種期望給予合法同意。

So how do we stop playing the victim or being manipulated by other people playing the victim?

那麼，我們如何停止扮演受害者或被其他人扮演的受害者所操縱？

The answer comes back to /mutual consent between people who are in a position to give legitimate

答案又回到了/有能力給予合法同意的人之間的相互同意。

consent/.

同意/。

We need to be clear about what we want from others and what they want in return, and then

我們需要清楚地知道我們想從別人那裡得到什麼，以及他們想要什麼回報，然後

we have to mutually consent to give one another those things.

我們必須相互同意給予對方這些東西。

And in cases where the other party can't give us consent, such as our children, we

而在另一方不能給予我們同意的情況下，例如我們的孩子，我們

are only free to give our consent to them, but we can't demand things of them that

我們只能自由地對他們表示同意，但我們不能要求他們做那些事。

they aren't in a position to give us consent for.

他們沒有能力給我們同意。

As always, this is just my opinion, understanding, and interpretation of some of Nietzsche's

像往常一樣，這只是我對尼采的一些觀點、理解和解釋。

ideas, not advice.

思想，而不是建議。

If you liked the video, please consider liking the video.

如果你喜歡這個視頻，請考慮喜歡這個視頻。

And if you're looking for another Nietzsche video to watch after this one, I recommend

如果你想在這個視頻之後再看一個尼采的視頻，我推薦

watching my video “Nietzsche - Overcome Shame, Become Who You Are”.

觀看我的視頻《尼采--克服羞恥，成為你自己》。

I'll put a link to it in the description below and in the top right of the screen right

我會在下面的描述中和螢幕的右上方放一個鏈接。

now.

現在。