评论
打印
For “Solitude” Netta Weinstein and Thuy-vy Nguyen, two psychology professors, have teamed up with Heather Hansen, a science journalist, to ponder the rewards of time spent alone.
在《孤独》中，两位心理学教授奈塔·韦恩斯坦和阮翠薇与科学记者希瑟·汉森合作，思考了独处的好处。
They begin with an account of the mythology of solitude created by figures such as Michel de Montaigne, an essayist, and Edward Hopper, a painter.
他们首先讲述了散文家米歇尔·德·蒙田和画家爱德华·霍珀等人物创造的孤独神话。
They then draw on laboratory work, interviews and surveys to illuminate how being alone really affects the human psyche.
然后，他们用实验室研究、采访和调查来阐明独处如何影响人类心理。
It is common to treat loneliness and solitude as synonyms, but they are not.
把孤独和孤单当作同义词是很常见的，但事实并非如此。
The authors suggest that what is negatively portrayed as one state can be positively reframed as the other.
作者表明，被描述为消极状态的情况可以被重新描述成另一种积极的情况。
To this end they emphasise the restorative possibilities of being alone and include practical guidance.
为此，他们强调了独处可能有恢复的力量，并提供了实际指导。
In a noisy and crowded world, they argue, people should make time to be by oneself, away from attention-grabbing stimuli.
他们认为，在一个嘈杂拥挤的世界里，人们应该抽出时间独处，远离吸引注意力的刺激。
The book’s interviewees mostly regard a lack of company as conducive to autonomy.
这本书的受访者大多认为，没有人陪伴可以促成自主性。
But this depends on whether solitude is elective or enforced.
但这取决于独处是可选择的还是强制的。
If it is enforced, as it is for social outcasts and some prisoners, for instance, it is often wretched.
如果被强制独处，比如对社会上被排斥的人和一些囚犯来说，独处往往是悲惨的。
Elective solitude, by contrast, above all in natural settings, affords space for reflection.
相反地，选择性的独处，尤其是在自然环境中，为反思提供了空间。
It can open the door to “peak experiences” such as wonder, awe, harmony, even ecstasy.
它可以打开通往惊叹、敬畏、和谐，甚至狂喜等“巅峰体验”的大门。
(In a hyper-connected digital age, many readers may not fancy their chances of ever being unplugged long enough to have such experiences.)
(在一个高度互联的数字时代，许多读者可能不会希望为了能有这些体验而在足够长的时间内断网。）
Pascal Bruckner sees a world shrinking from sociability in favour of snug seclusion.
帕斯卡尔·布鲁克纳认为，世界的社交性正在萎缩，人们更喜欢舒适地隐居。
“The Triumph of the Slippers” is grounded not in research but in the French tradition of witty social criticism.
《拖鞋的胜利》不是建立在研究的基础上，而是法国诙谐的社会批评传统之上。
Mr Bruckner, a philosopher and polemicist, dubs the present period “a Great Withdrawal”.
哲学家和辩论家布鲁克纳将当前时期称为“大撤退”。
As he sees it, the openness of the late 20th century is over, and “the closing of minds and spaces is well under way.”
在他看来，20世纪末的开放已经结束，“思想和空间的关闭正在进行”。
People may like living in “authorised sloppiness”, yet it is hard to imagine heroes and trailblazers wearing dressing gowns: “While it’s nice to be comfortable, you can’t build a civilisation on softness.”
人们可能喜欢过一种“被许可的懒散生活”，但很难想象英雄和开拓者会穿着浴袍：“舒适固然好，但柔软舒适无法让你建立文明。”
With a mixture of playfulness and grandiosity, he describes a society where most tasks can be completed without leaving the house.
布鲁克纳以既打趣又浮夸的语气，描述了一个大多数任务都可以在家里完成的社会。
His book overflows with soundbites—the public sphere, for example, is dominated by “orgies of pettiness”—and he peppers his short chapters with references to Nietzsche, Plato and Rousseau.
他的书中有许多简短金句，例如，公共领域被“琐碎的狂欢”主导，而且他在短小的章节中穿插了尼采、柏拉图和卢梭的思想。
Though his argument spins off in many directions, Mr Bruckner’s main theme is the need for people to relearn the art of intimacy.
尽管布鲁克纳的论述从多个方向展开，但他的主旨是人们需要重新学习关于亲密关系的艺术。
“Interactive solitude”, enabled by technology, is no substitute for “the great theatre of the world”.
科技带来的“互动式孤独”并不能取代“世界这个大剧院”。
Mr Bruckner supplies a checklist for warding off enduring, corrosive feelings of loneliness: “Have we loved enough, given enough, lavished enough, embraced enough?”
布鲁克纳列出了几项事物用来抵御持久的、侵蚀心灵的孤独感：“我们是否爱得够多、给予得够多、挥霍得够多、拥抱得够多？”
If these books are right, many readers will find themselves answering “No.”
如果这些书说的是真的，那么许多读者会发现自己的回答是“不够”。
