Name: 特朗普是政治的終結者嗎？- 八位一體的哲學 (Is Trump the END of Politics? – 8-Bit Philosophy)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T06:22:56.000Z
Duration: 6 min 6 s

Body building—the art of meticulously sculpting every muscle of your body in order to achieve an ideal image—

健身是一門藝術，藉由謹慎雕塑身體每一塊肌肉以符合一個理想的形象－

proportionate, symmetrical, statuesque perfection.

比例均衡、對稱分布，而且如雕塑般的完美。

例外句型

Politics is more like body building than one might think, except instead of molding your body,

其實政治比我們想得更像健身，不過它講究的不是身材，

politicians painstakingly sculpt their personalities in order to optimize their appeal to voters.

這些政治人物們無所不用其極的經營自己的人格特質，只希望他們的訴求在投票人眼中更趨完美。

That’s why Carly Fiorina started smiling... and probably shouldn't have.

這就是為什麼 Carly Fiorina 開始在鏡頭前微笑了－她還是不要笑比較好。

According to French Marxist philosopher Guy Deboard, this is emblematic of a larger problem.

就法國的馬克思主義哲學家居伊．德波看來，這個情況背後有著更大的問題。

Written in 1967, Deboard’s The Society of Spectacle warns of a culture driven entirely by image,

寫作於 1967 年，德波的《景觀社會》預警了一個全然由形象所主導的文化，

in which people are more concerned with how they are perceived than they actually are.

在這之中，人們在乎的是他們「看起來」是什麼樣子，而非他們「實際上」是如何。

It is a society fundamentally altered by the power of advertisement—

這是個全然被廣告所掌控的社會，

that perverts reality so that the only thing that matters

它扭曲了現實，以至於唯一重要的事情

is the projection of an aura, mystique, or specific representation;

是一種氛圍、神秘感，或某種特定行為表現的投射。

where we’re all constantly preoccupied with managing and curating our image.

在這之中，我們唯一的執著就是管理和經營自己的形象。

The content of these images is inconsequential—all that matters is the shininess of the form.

這些形象的具體內容其實無關緊要，只要外表光鮮亮麗就好。

This image is always communicated through media—an idea of media very different from Deboard’s day.

同時，這些形象也會藉由媒體來傳播－現代的媒體自然和德波的年代的定義相差甚遠。

We live in a time where we are saturated with so many images—

我們生存在一個充斥著形象的年代裡，

endless blogs, websites, TV channels, Tumblrs, and YouTubers.

其中包含無止盡的部落格、網站、電視頻道、Tumblr 和 YouTube 用戶。

As a result, there’s a cutthroat race to gain the most amount of attention—

因此，為了搶人氣，時時都有割喉戰在上演，

and political news has to compete in this same realm.

而政治新聞也必須在同一個場域裡競逐。

How can the rather dry issue of balancing the budget possibly compete with 10 awkward texts from your ex girlfriend?

像平衡預算這樣索然無味的新聞，要怎麼跟 10 則前女友寄的奇怪簡訊相比呢？

The answer: make politics more entertaining.

答案就是：讓政治更具娛樂性。

Indeed, politics is becoming more and more like a spectator sport—

的確，政治也變得越來越像觀眾性運動了，

the candidates Olympians at the art of bullshitting.

一群在胡扯大賽中競爭的候選人。

The aesthetic of the debates are only a sound cue away from Monday night football or a UFC fight.

政治辯論的美學程度已經不再，和周一晚上的足球比賽或一場終極格鬥冠軍賽相去不遠。

We find ourselves in a media landscape where spectacle is a proven vehicle to success—

我們發現自己處在一個「景觀等於成功」的媒體生態中，

it’s the reason why the line between clickbait, journalism, and ads is getting blurrier everyday.

這就是為什麼釣魚新聞、新聞和廣告的界線日益模糊。

And since political news is almost entirely consumed through media outlets,

也因為政治新聞幾乎都是由媒體公司所播送，

the line between politics and entertainment is disappearing.

We expect that same gratification from our politicians that we do from our Buzzfeed articles.

我們抱持著如同閱讀 Buzzfeed 文章的心態來看待這些政治人物。

This is what French philosopher Francois Debrix dubbed “Tabloid Realism:”

法國哲學家  Francois Debrix 將這貶斥為「小報寫實主義」：

A form of politics structured around easy headlines and common sense dialogue.

由淺顯易懂的頭條和日常對話所構成的政治形式。

He says: “Americans do not want to read or hear that they are underpaid, overworked, bullied at work, in the home, when serving their country in foreign lands.

他這樣說：「美國人不想要讀到或聽到他們工資過低、過勞，或是在職場、家庭與在外地為國征戰時遭到霸凌。

They want glamorous stories, scandals, exceptional events,

他們想要迷人的故事、醜聞，和獨特的事件，

news they can build dreams on or develop a sense of anger from.

凡是他們得以構築夢想或是發洩憤怒的新聞就好。

In short, they want to be entertained.”

簡單的說，他們想要尋求娛樂。」

If we are primed to love spectacle, then why not go with the most spectacular candidate?

如果我們這麼耽溺視覺快感，為什麼不投給最有可看性的候選人呢？

The thing that sells best in this spectacle-driven society is distraction.

在一個景觀至上的社會裡，最暢銷的東西就是能讓你分心的事物。

It doesn’t matter whether or not there are 40 plot holes in Star Wars: The Force Awakens—

在《星際大戰：原力覺醒》中到底有沒有 40 個劇情漏洞一點也不重要，

what matters is that you clicked on the link promising to expose these plot holes—and that you like to think that there are.

重要的是你點了那個聲稱可以洩漏這些漏洞的連結，而且你也傾向相信這些破綻存在。

Likewise, it doesn’t matter if hundreds of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11 or not—

同樣的，有沒有一百個穆斯林在紐澤西慶祝 911 事件也一點也不重要，

那充其量是個更有渲染力的敘事罷了。

Entertainment was supposed to be a distraction from the serious truth of our political lives.

娛樂一開始的功能，是讓我們得以從政治生活中嚴肅的事實分神。

But now, politics has become a parody of itself and reflects a greater truth.

但現在，政治和娛樂已經無法區分，而這也反映出一個更大的真相。

As Deboard famously said: “in a topsy-turvy world, the true is a moment of the false.”

正如德波那句名言：「在一個顛倒是非的世界，真相同時也是謊言。」

Despite the fact that Trump may constantly lie about facts—there is an element of greater truth in his lies.

儘管川普可能經常說謊，但在他的謊言中卻有更大的真理。

The truth, that in our image-driven society, we don’t want the truth—

這個真理是，在這個由形象主導的社會中，我們不要真相，

we choose to consume a projected image of what we desire to be true.

我們選擇接受一個我們渴望它成真的假象。

We would rather vote for someone who embodies a reality that we want to believe

我們寧願投給一個體現我們心中假象的人，

than a person that actually reflects the reality of politics.

而不是一個反映政治現實的候選人。

A formal definition of politics has its roots in the Greek word “politikos," "of, or pertaining to, the polis,”

政治這個詞的正式定義，可以追溯到希臘文的 "politikos"，意思是「從屬於，或與 polis 相關」，

where the polis is the city-state or a community.

And as such, politics concerns a community of citizens and their everyday interaction.

這樣看來，政治牽涉的是一個社群裡的市民，以及他們每日的互動關係。

For Aristotle, civic participation isn’t just a duty; it is the very thing that defines human beings as being apart from animals.

亞里斯多德認為，公民參與並不僅僅是責任，它更是區分人類與動物之間最重要的界線。

As political animals or zōon politikon, humans are endowed with the logos, the ability to use reason and speech.

身為政治性的生物，或所謂 zōon politikon（zōon 意指動物），人類擁有 logos（邏各斯），也就是運用理性和進行演說的能力。

More and more we seem to be animals that crave distraction,

逐漸的，我們似乎成為渴望娛樂的動物，

and politics is just another way to get that.

If thousands of years ago human beings were civic, political, and social animals concerned with justice—

如果幾千年前，人類是文明的、有政治素養的，而且是關心正義的社群動物，

如今我們成為什麼了？我們還是人類嗎？

or are we: zōon clickbaitcon, zōon distracticon, zōon whatsthatovertherecon?

或者我們已經是釣魚廣告動物、喜好分心的動物，還是管他是什麼動物？