So I go to school to get an education, I get an education to get a job, and I get a job so that I get money to buy nice things, and so on and so on.

我上學是為了接受教育，接受教育是為了找工作，找工作是為了有錢買好東西，如此循環往復。

But the question Aristotle asks is what is the end point of all this?

但亞里斯多德提出的問題是，這一切的終點是什麼？

What lies at the top of the ladder?

階梯頂端是什麼？

And for Aristotle, the point of all human life is to reach happiness.

在亞里斯多德看來，人類生活的意義就在於獲得幸福。

I think it's so elusive because the term itself is so laden.

我認為它之所以如此難以捉摸，是因為這個詞本身的含義太深了。

We associate happiness as being this beaming smile with a selfie on social media, but I think happiness is not a smiling face, it's more a smiling soul.

我們會把幸福聯想成在社交媒體上自拍的燦爛笑容，但我認為幸福不是一張微笑的臉，而是一個微笑的靈魂。

But why do we find it confusing?

但為什麼我們會感到困惑呢？

Why is it hard to understand?

為什麼難以理解？

I think Taoism offers a really good analogy here.

我認為道教在這裡提供了一個非常好的比喻。

So imagine life as like a dense, thorny forest.

請把生活想象成一片茂密、荊棘叢生的森林。

And in the middle of this forest is a well-paved superhighway.

而在這片森林中間，有一條鋪設好的超級高速公路。

And it's easy to walk along that path.

沿著這條路走下去很容易。

But there are other paths.

但也有其他途徑。

But these paths go through swamps, they go through thorns, they go up and down hills, and they are difficult.

但是，這些道路要穿過沼澤，披荊斬棘，上山下山，困難重重。

And I think happiness is a little bit like that.

我覺得幸福就有點像這樣。

There's certain paths to happiness which feel right and are right, but there are so many different paths with their different sirens calls which attract us.

有一些通往幸福的道路感覺是正確的，也是正確的，但也有許多不同的道路以其不同的誘惑吸引著我們。

And I think we don't realize we're on the wrong path, often until it's too late, and we find the going really difficult.

我認為，我們往往直到為時已晚，發現前路艱難時，才意識到自己走錯了路。

Hi, my name's Jonny Thompson.

嗨，我叫喬尼-湯普森。

I'm the staff writer at Big Think, and I'm the author of the books Mini Philosophy and Mini Big Ideas, and I run the social media account called Mini Philosophy.

我是《大思維》雜誌的撰稿人，也是《迷你哲學》和《迷你大思維》兩本書的作者，我還營運著一個名為 "迷你哲學 "的社交媒體賬戶。

So I started the Mini Philosophy project about seven years ago, and the aim was to try to teach philosophy to everybody.

我在大約七年前啟動了 "迷你哲學 "項目，目的是向每個人傳授哲學。

The idea was to duck and weave my way through the different philosophical traditions and different philosophical schools.

我的想法是在不同的哲學傳統和不同的哲學流派中穿梭。

So if you imagine the history of philosophy as some kind of big heat map, that there are certain themes start to emerge.

如果把哲學史想象成某種大的熱圖，就會有某些主題開始出現。

And they're all to do with happiness.

它們都與幸福有關。

They're all to do with how to live the best life, how to be a good person.

它們都與如何過上最好的生活、如何成為一個好人有關。

You have epicureanism, you have cynicism, you have stoicism, and you have skepticism.

你可以有饕餮主義、憤世嫉俗主義、委曲求全主義，也可以有懷疑主義。

And they're all trying to sell their different version of happiness, and they're literally trying to sell to their disciples that their way is the best way to be happy.

他們都在試圖推銷自己不同版本的幸福，他們真的在試圖向自己的弟子們推銷，他們的方式是獲得幸福的最佳途徑。

And that interested me.

我對此很感興趣。

But if you zoom out, you do start to notice certain commonalities and certain themes.

但是，如果你把視野放大，就會開始注意到某些共同點和某些主題。

So if we imagine happiness as being on the right path, if we follow the Taoist metaphor, then the question we've got to ask ourselves is if we are unhappy, what's going on there?

如果我們把幸福想象為走在正確的道路上，如果我們遵循道家的比喻，那麼我們要問自己的問題是，如果我們不快樂，那是怎麼回事？

And the question then is about finding the right path again.

那麼問題就在於重新找到正確的道路。

There are certain lights which emerge in the history of philosophy and theology as well, which are meant to act as beacons or guides with which we can walk towards.

哲學史和神學史上也會出現一些光亮，它們就像燈塔或嚮導，指引我們前行。

It's found in Confucius's idea of right virtue, it's found in Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, and it's found in Al-Ghazali's idea that the right way is in accordance with Allah.

孔子的正德思想、亞里士多德的尼各馬科倫理學、加扎利的 "正道遵從真主 "思想中都有這種思想。

So if we are unhappy, then we should work towards these lights.

如果我們不快樂，就應該朝著這些光努力。

And I've identified three lights, or what I like to call pillars of happiness.

我已經確定了三盞明燈，或者我喜歡稱之為幸福的支柱。

The first pillar, or light number one, is the idea that happiness is not measured by pleasure.

第一根支柱，或者說第一盞明燈，是 "幸福不是用快樂來衡量的 "這一理念。

So the ancient Greeks had a lot of different words for happiness, and one of them is hedonia.

古希臘人對幸福有很多不同的說法，其中之一就是 "幸福"（hedonia）。

And hedonia is what we might want to call simple pleasure.

而 "享樂"（hedonia）就是我們常說的 "簡單的快樂"。

It's a big night out with some friends, but it's also drinking a herbal tea on the sofa.

這是和朋友們一起出去玩的夜晚，但也是在沙發上喝涼茶的夜晚。

It's quite easy to measure and it's quite easy to understand because it's an emotional affect.

這很容易測量，也很容易理解，因為這是一種情緒影響。

Eudaimonia, though, is a much harder word to understand.

不過，Eudaimonia 這個詞更難理解。

It's often translated as flourishing, and the reason why it's difficult to understand is that it's often understood in reverse.

它通常被翻譯成繁盛，之所以難以理解，是因為人們常常反過來理解它。

So there are many moments in life where we look back on our experiences and think they were really hard at the time, but actually we were supremely happy.

在人生的許多時刻，我們回顧自己的經歷，會覺得當時真的很艱難，但實際上我們卻無比快樂。

For example, raising young kids or even school can be quite hard at the time, but we look back and think those were moments where I was deeply, supremely happy.

例如，撫養年幼的孩子，甚至上學，在當時都是相當艱難的，但我們回過頭來看，會覺得那是我深感幸福的時刻。

So the idea that pleasure is not an essential ingredient to happiness appears in many different philosophical schools.

快樂不是幸福的基本要素這一觀點出現在許多不同的哲學流派中。

So this idea is central to Buddhism.

這一思想是佛教的核心。

So Buddhists tend to define pleasure as being a desire satisfying.

佛教徒傾向於將快樂定義為慾望的滿足。

So I want a drink of water, and so I reach for the water and I drink it, and that gives me a pleasure.

所以我想喝水，於是我伸手去拿水喝，這給了我一種快樂。

But the problem, of course, is that this is an unwinnable game.

當然，問題在於這是一場贏不了的比賽。

Every day we have millions and millions of desires, and there's no way we can satisfy them all.

每天，我們都有數以百萬計的慾望，而我們不可能全部滿足它們。

It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

這就像打地鼠遊戲。

If we're to be happy at all, it has to be found outside of this notion of pleasure.

如果我們要獲得快樂，就必須在快樂的概念之外尋找快樂。

We have to step beyond hedonia.

我們必須超越享樂主義。

But the problem is that we risk going too far.

但問題是，我們有可能走得太遠。

It's a logical fallacy to say that just because pleasure doesn't equal happiness, that suffering therefore must.

如果說快樂不等於幸福，那麼痛苦就一定等於快樂，這是一種邏輯謬誤。

And it's a risk that we fetishize suffering, that we enjoy this kind of masochistic misery and we see that as essential to flourishing.

這是一種風險，我們迷戀苦難，我們享受這種受虐狂式的痛苦，我們將其視為繁榮的必要條件。

But of course, that's not true.

當然，事實並非如此。

And the second pillar, the second light which emerges across all these traditions is moderation.

第二根支柱，也是貫穿所有這些傳統的第二道曙光，就是節制。

And we have to find a middle way.

我們必須找到一條中間道路。

It's essential to Taoism.

這對道教至關重要。

And the idea is that life is not black or white, but rather it's a confused and confusing cocktail of things.

我的想法是，生活不是非黑即白的，而是各種事物混雜混亂的混合體。

Everything is grey.

一切都是灰色的。

So yin tends to represent the dark, the mysterious, the elusive, water, fluidity.

"陰 "往往代表黑暗、神祕、難以捉摸、水和流動性。

And yang tends to represent the exciting, the passionate, the loud, the sunny, and truth.

而 "陽 "往往代表刺激、熱情、響亮、陽光和真實。

And so for Taoists, we have to find the middle path, which is walking between yin and yang.

對於道家來說，我們必須找到中庸之道，也就是在陰陽之間行走。

But this idea of moderation is also seen in everyday life.

但在日常生活中也能看到這種節制的理念。

And it's in the Swedish lifestyle concept of lagom, which means just the right amount.

瑞典的生活方式理念是 "lagom"，意思是恰到好處。

And there's two elements to it, really.

這其實有兩個因素。

The first element is a kind of fair usage policy, where if I take all of the cookies in the cookie jar, then it leaves none for anybody else.

第一個要素是一種公平使用政策，即如果我拿走了餅乾罐裡所有的餅乾，那麼其他人就沒有餅乾可吃了。

And so what I do will affect other people.

我的所作所為會影響到其他人。

The second element of lagom is a kind of recognition that sometimes less really is more.

拉格姆的第二個要素是一種認識，即有時少即是多。

And so, for example, if I'm having a coffee with a friend, that's fun.

舉個例子，如果我和朋友一起喝咖啡，那就很有趣。

That's enjoyable.

真是令人愉快。

But if I have seven coffees, it's not so much.

但如果我喝了七杯咖啡，就沒那麼多了。

And this idea of moderation and balance appears again and again through different threads in philosophy.

而這種節制與平衡的思想，在哲學的不同線索中反覆出現。

But the third thing that I noticed appearing is the idea that happiness is an unavoidable emergent state of goodness.

但我注意到出現的第三件事是，幸福是一種不可避免的善的湧現狀態。

That you cannot be truly and meaningfully happy unless you are also virtuous.

除非你也有美德，否則你不可能獲得真正的、有意義的幸福。

But of course, this raises a problem.

當然，這也帶來了一個問題。

And the problem is, what does virtuous mean?

問題是，"美德 "是什麼意思？

Because if we zoom in on any different culture and any different time, what people define as right and wrong and good and bad will change from person to person, from philosopher to philosopher.

因為如果我們放大到任何不同的文化和任何不同的時代，人們所定義的對與錯、好與壞都會因人而異，因哲學家而異。

So if you look at the history of philosophy, what you find is that certain virtues have always been called virtues and certain vices have always been called vices.

如果你回顧一下哲學史，就會發現某些美德一直被稱為美德，而某些惡習一直被稱為惡習。

I think we can identify five.

我想我們可以確定五個。

The first is altruism and the vice egoism.

第一種是利他主義，第二種是利己主義。

So this is seen in Augustine's Code for Monks and it's seen in Islam's Zakat.

這一點在奧古斯丁的《僧侶守則》和伊斯蘭教的《天課》中都有所體現。

It's there in Peter Singer and Immanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas.

彼得-辛格、伊曼紐爾-康德和托馬斯-阿奎那都有這種思想。

And the idea is a sense of other-regardedness, charity and caring for other people.

這種理念是一種他者關懷、慈善和關愛他人的意識。

The second is kindness and cruelty.

二是善良與殘忍。

So this is best represented by the golden mean.

黃金分割點最能體現這一點。

Which most people are familiar with this from the Gospels, which is do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

大多數人都熟知《福音書》中的這句話，即己所不欲，勿施於人。

But it's not just in the Gospels.

但這並不僅僅發生在《福音書》中。

It's seen in Sanskrit, in Tamil, in Persian, in ancient Greece and in the Vedas.

在梵文、泰米爾文、波斯文、古希臘文和《吠陀經》中都能看到它。

But it's also seen in modern times in Kant's First Categorical Imperative and in Aquinas' Natural Law.

但在現代，康德的《第一絕對命令》和阿奎那的《自然法》中也可以看到這一點。

Be good and kind to other people.

善待他人，與人為善。

And the third virtue vice is justice and injustice.

第三種美德是正義與非正義。

I think if you put Plato and Mencius and John Rawls in the same room, they would agree about the need for justice.

我認為，如果把柏拉圖、孟子和約翰-羅爾斯放在同一個房間裡，他們會同意正義的必要性。

Which is the idea of some kind of retribution for wrongdoers.

這就是對不法行為者進行某種報復的想法。

The fourth virtue vice is wisdom and ignorance.

第四種美德是智慧與無知。

Socrates famously wrote that the unexamined life is not worth living and the Buddha encouraged his disciples to meditate at great length on the universe.

蘇格拉底曾寫下 "未經審視的人生不值得過 "的名言，佛陀也鼓勵弟子們對宇宙進行長時間的冥想。

I can't think of any major philosopher who's been treated seriously for long who advocates for ignorance.

我想不出有哪位長期受到認真對待的大哲學家會主張無知。

And the fifth virtue vice is humility and arrogance.

第五種美德是謙虛和傲慢。

And I think this has two strands really.

我認為這其實有兩個方面。

The first is a kind of intellectual humility, which is represented best by John Stuart Mill.

第一種是知識分子的謙遜，約翰-斯圖亞特-密爾（John Stuart Mill）就是最好的代表。

And the second is a kind of existential humility, which is represented by the religions.

其次是一種存在主義的謙卑，它以宗教為代表。

It's in Karl Barth.

在卡爾-巴特那裡。

It's in Maimonides.

在邁蒙尼德中就有。

And the word Islam literally translates as surrender to Allah.

伊斯蘭一詞的字面意思是向真主投降。

This is the idea that you are not the center of the universe.

這就是 "你不是宇宙的中心"。

There are things outside of your understanding which are far more powerful and which we occasionally have to bow to.

有些東西超出了你的理解範圍，它們的力量要強大得多，我們有時不得不屈服於它們。

So taking all these together, how can we actually apply these three pillars to our day-to-day life?

綜上所述，我們該如何將這三大支柱應用到日常生活中呢？

And I think for pillar number one, which is the idea that happiness cannot be measured by pleasure.

我認為，第一支柱是 "幸福不能用快樂來衡量"。

I think a really good example of this is parenting.

我認為為人父母就是一個很好的例子。

If you ever go on social media and you see a reel or a post about a new parent, it's inevitably moaning about something.

如果你曾經在社交媒體上看到過關於新手父母的卷軸或帖子，那就不可避免地會抱怨一些事情。

Their sleep-deprived nights or the germs or their kids aren't eating anything and it's full of stress and what appears to be misery.

他們晚上睡眠不足，或者細菌太多，或者孩子們什麼都不吃，充滿了壓力和看似痛苦的生活。

But then if you commented on those posts saying, well, why did you bother having kids in the first place?

但是，如果你在這些帖子上評論說，好吧，你當初為什麼要生孩子呢？

Or why do kids make you unhappy?

或者，為什麼孩子會讓你不快樂？

Often parents will reply, I'm the happiest I've ever been.

父母往往會回答說，我是有史以來最幸福的人。

And I think parenting is an example of looking back at a stage of your life and thinking all of the ingredients might have been pretty hard in themselves.

我認為，為人父母就是這樣一個例子，當你回顧人生的某個階段時，你會覺得所有的因素本身可能都很艱難。

But as a whole, I was deeply existentially happy.

但總體而言，我深感存在的幸福。

Pillar number two is the idea of moderation in all things.

第二根支柱是凡事適度的理念。

And I think this is best seen in dieting.

我認為這一點在節食方面體現得淋漓盡致。

So most diets end within a month or if not weeks and most news resolutions end pretty quickly.

大多數節食都會在一個月甚至幾周內結束，而大多數新聞決議也會很快結束。

It's I'm going to go to the gym every day and run half marathons or I'm going to give up chocolate or I'm never going to drink alcohol ever again.

是我要每天去健身房跑半程馬拉松，還是我要戒掉巧克力，還是我再也不喝酒了。

And they fail because they are so extreme.

它們之所以失敗，是因為它們太極端了。

And the best diets in history allow a degree of flexibility and moderation.

歷史上最好的飲食都有一定程度的靈活性和節制性。

So dieting when it's done at these extremes does work for some people, no doubt.

毫無疑問，在這種極端情況下節食對某些人確實有效。

But for most people, dieting is best when it happens in the middle way.

但對大多數人來說，節食最好是中庸之道。

So pillar number three is that happiness requires goodness, which might seem ridiculous to lots of people because we can point to people who seem to be pretty cruel or immoral and yet they seem to be also very happy.

第三支柱是幸福需要善良，這在很多人看來可能很荒謬，因為我們可以指出那些看起來非常殘忍或不道德的人，但他們似乎也非常幸福。

But the evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar did a study into gossip and he argued that gossip is a kind of social culling where we talk about the cheaters and the liars and the thieves in our lives so we can shun them from society.

但進化心理學家羅賓-鄧巴（Robin Dunbar）對流言蜚語進行了研究，他認為流言蜚語是一種社會篩選，我們談論生活中的金光黨、說謊者和小偷，這樣我們就能將他們從社會中剔除。

Inversely, those who are friendly and kind will be welcomed into society.

反之，友好善良的人會受到社會的歡迎。

So what we can conclude is those who are kind and those who are friendly will have friends and those who have friends are also happy.

我們可以得出這樣的結論：善良和友好的人會有朋友，有朋友的人也會快樂。

What I find really interesting is if you zoom out and look at the history of philosophy, you see these three pillars emerging and they act essentially as a diagnostic tool.

我覺得非常有趣的是，如果你把視野放大，看看哲學史，就會發現這三大支柱的出現，它們本質上是一種診斷工具。

If you feel you are unhappy in life, you can look at these pillars and think which of these three am I not meeting?

如果你覺得自己生活得不快樂，你可以看看這些支柱，想一想我沒有達到這三個支柱中的哪一個？

Is it that I'm confusing a hard patch of my life of being unhappy?

是我把生活中的困難與不快樂混為一談了嗎？

Is it that I'm going to extremes?

是我走極端了嗎？

Or is it that possibly I'm not being as good as I could be?

還是說，可能是我做得不夠好？

If we recognise that those are the problems in our life, we can take steps to fix it.

如果我們認識到這些是我們生活中的問題，我們就可以採取措施去解決它。