This article is from WeChat official account:GQ report (ID: GQREPORT)< span class = "text-remarks">, author: Lin small four, deer, interviews, editor: Lin Fourth, the original title: “Professor Liu Qing: there is love marriage itself is an accident,” the title from the chart: Visual China

“People are the purpose, not the tool”, “The world should let those bad choices disappear”… First, I got the App to talk about Western modern thought, and then I talked about it in the seventh season of “Wonderful Flowers” And in 996 and 007, East China Normal University professor Liu Qing walked into the public eye from the campus.

Ma Dong once said on the show that because Liu Qing mentioned the concept of “changes in ancient and modern” in his new book “Liu Qing’s Lectures on Modern Western Thought”, he invited Liu Qing to provide it to the audience. A new dimension of thinking.

When Liu Qing explained the concept of “changes between ancient and modern” in the book, he gave an example of love and marriage:

“In traditional society, romantic love and marriage are separate.”

“Medieval France has a kind of’love court’, which specially arbitrates love disputes for aristocrats. It is said that there was such a verdict: after an aristocratic woman married her lover, she can start looking for new lovers.”

“Because there is no love in marriage, marriage means that the love relationship between two people is over and a new love can be started.”

“The view at the time was that the spirit of marriage is responsibility, which is to protect property and maintain family continuity. Some people even say that love will corrupt this serious responsibility.”

“It took a hundred years ago to marry for love.”

We invite Professor Liu Qing to talk about this topic more specifically. It is not so much an interview as it is an exploration. According to the professor’s words, “There is no authoritative answer to this question, so It’s interesting”.

At the end of the interview, he gave his own answer: Under the social background of increasing uncertainty and insecurity, young people are either disappointed in their feelings, or continue to follow the traditional marriage and love track, or fall into confusion. , Confusion and infinite quarrel. Even so, if a person has hadA kind of selfless love, maybe he can have a lasting middle-aged and old age. Mini-communism for two people is possible.

GQ Lab: There are many emotional debates in “Qihua Shuo”, such as “Frequent scumbags, is it my problem?” “Good friends cry for me every day when they are broken in love. Can I fool TA when I’m tired?” “I’m an independent woman, should I receive a betrothal gift” and so on. When you participated in the seventh season, what kind of situation did you observe young people in this regard?

Liu Qing: There may be two types of people standing at the two extremes of their attitudes towards love and marriage, and most people are in the middle.

Let me first talk about two extreme types of people. One type of people is immersed in the traditional track. Their direction is to marry the male and female, but the way to achieve this will be more complicated than that of the parents; A kind of person has given up illusions and prepared to fight. They see love and marriage clearly, and know that there is no all-round intimacy in this world; they accept various types of marriage: economic community, partner, cooperative relationship at work… People are sober, clear, and stable.

I have not done a sociological survey. I roughly estimate that there are 20% of the people at each end, but relatively speaking, it is still relatively small. The remaining 60% of young people are in the middle, and they belong to the majority.

Most young people are still confused and constantly changing. Young people may say some bold words, but that kind of bold words are unreliable. Why intimacy and marriage issues are repeatedly brought up to talk about? It’s because most young people do not necessarily have a clear and firm answer, whether in terms of ideas or feelings. And people’s feelings and attitudes will change with their own situation. Sometimes it’s very frustrated, and sometimes I just fell out of love and I’m very disappointed when I meet someone unfairly; but suddenly I encounter an opportunity, which brings hope. People are very susceptible to their own feelings, especially young people.

But whether it is a type at both ends or a person in the middle, we actually need to understand the ins and outs behind these concepts, because we do not generate these attitudes out of thin air. This is related to the background of the entire modern society.

GQ Lab: What role does philosophy play in this?

Liu Qing: Philosophy provides us with a reflection dimension. People will always be conscious or notSelf-reflection consciously, but reflection is not a person who thinks about it. People have different abilities to reflect on themselves. Reflection is to objectify oneself, just like a person looking in a mirror. When he looks at himself in the mirror, he is not himself, but a bystander. He will have a standard of reference for how he looks at himself.

For example, in traditional society, if a woman looks in a mirror, she may use the prevailing concept to examine herself. Is she virtuous? Is it decent? Is it delicate? Sometimes relatives, friends and colleagues around are also examples. Their good or bad, positive or negative life conditions will all create attraction or pressure to a person.

In modern society, everyone has another vision. When a woman looks in the mirror again, she no longer only refers to the traditional society of “male superior to female inferior” and “female sings with each other”. Modern society has provided her with many channels to help her break free from the predicament of traditional society, allowing and respecting the various lives that everyone chooses according to their own wishes.

She is light, she can fly. But this is also a troublesome place in modern society. Nothing can really trap a person. Just like Kundera’s phrase “the unbearable lightness of life”, a person has to form a standard of reference when choosing. , And at the same time bear all the costs of independent choice.

Young people bear their lives, free and light, but also lonely and heavy. Modern people live in the consequences of their own choices. The question we need to solve now is: As a party who chooses, how do you think about your choice? Because no one wants to live a life of regret. Do young people make choices firmly, confidently, and proud of life? Is it a last resort? Or panic, overwhelmed, and feel that no life is really suitable for you? These problems have not been completely resolved, and there is no authoritative answer.

Philosophy cannot answer all questions, and may not answer most of them, but philosophy provides young people with richer resources for reflection. It serves as a basis for selection, helping young people think more deeply about things, see the ins and outs more clearly, and help them see themselves more clearly. Finally, young people will decide for themselves.

GQ Lab: You have briefly talked about the changes in love and marriage between the past and the present in the new book “Liu Qing’s Lectures on Modern Western Thought”. What is the reason why young people in modern society are in such a situation and have such an attitude? What are the ins and outs of it or the changes in the past and the present?

Liu Qing: I wrote in the book that in traditional society, love and marriage are two things. I cited the European Middle AgesAn example of Ji said that at the time there was a notion that marriage means that the love relationship between two people is over and a new relationship can be started. Because at that time, the spirit of marriage was responsibility, protecting property and maintaining family continuity, while love was another matter. Some people even say that love will corrupt this serious responsibility. It was more than a hundred years ago that the concept of “marrying for love” became popular. Love and marriage together, this is a very special phenomenon.

The special combination of love and marriage can bring crisis, but it has been prevented by two factors for a long time in the past. One is inequality between men and women. The male-dominated authoritarian structure makes the family stable, but this stability comes at the cost of suppressing one party. The second is the dependence of both parties. Men are not independent in household chores, and women are not financially independent, rely on each other, and provide each other with scarce resources.

Today, one hundred years later, the problem of the mixing of love and marriage is gradually exposed. The main reason is that women have become economically autonomous. If a woman is not financially independent, it may be quite difficult for her to be equal in the relationship. Not that it must be so, but it is likely to be so . So women’s economic autonomy—and men are also the same—is a very important thing.This is a hard-core experience taught to us by the first generation of feminism. If current boys say “I raise you”, girls may think “Who wants you to raise”.

In this case, the functionality that keeps the two parties together needs to change. A new and most critical question has appeared: I like it or not, whether I want it or not. But “like” and “willing” can change. Establishing marriage on the basis of love makes the relationship very unstable.

In relationships, a practical question is whether a person likes you or not, there is a great chance. He doesn’t like you, or he doesn’t want to be with you, it’s probably not simply because your salary is not high enough, your talent is not good enough, and your appearance is not beautiful enough. The fatal part of love is that one person’s “dislike” and “unwilling” in a relationship are a comprehensive evaluation and comprehensive denial of another person, which is a big blow.

Our current judgment standards are also more diverse. On the issue of feelings, subjectivity is even higher, and the blows and consequences it brings will become problems we face.

The importance of subjective judgment has risen, which is also a big aspect of the changes in the past and the present. We may be more receptive to this in our relationships. On other issues, this will cause more trouble. As I mentioned in the lecture notes, one of the characteristics of the changes in the past and the present is that we are getting more and morePay more attention to “I like” and “I do.” The subjective value given by the individual becomes very important, and sometimes even overwhelms all other standards.

“I like” has become so important, on the one hand it includes respect for the individual. But on the other hand, this phenomenon confuses us: Sometimes when discussing issues with others, the other person’s words “I like” and “I do” seem to be unable to refute the discussion; the words “I don’t care” can deny the discussion. the value of. This kind of rash arrogance was unimaginable in the past, but today it has become a reality and sometimes even seems reasonable. Judging by oneself, as the highest standard, on the one hand people are in liberated relaxation and excitement, on the other hand they are in uncertain and uncertain anxiety.

GQ Lab: In this context, is it possible that there will be more conflicting discussions in the seventh season of “Qihua”, such as “I am an independent woman, In the discussion on the topic “Should I receive the betrothal gift”, some players were calling for love, and some players were talking about the oppression of women’s family by the betrothal gift.

Liu Qing: Right. The expression behind the word betrothal is different. I said, Modern people are living in the consequences of their own choice. If she is given this gift to kidnap her, break her independence, and have a coercive demand on her, then she cannot accept it.< /strong>. If the gift does not force her to restrain her, or she can get rid of the restraint, then she can accept it. Because the independent consciousness of independent women is not the same thing as their independent state. She has a sense of independence. At the same time, she needs some foundation to maintain her independent life, including money. If the bride price did not kidnap her, it is conducive to a person becoming an independent woman. This is a very interesting, very complicated, and very difficult topic. It depends on each person’s specific situation.

She should be selectable and negotiable. But there is another side to negotiation. When we talk about marriage, we will encounter many tedious things, which will calm both parties. A young man asked me, do I need a cooling-off period for marriage? I said that preparing for a wedding can calm both parties enough. The problem with negotiation is that it seems to change the nature of a relationship. People are sinister and things are fickle. In a high-risk society, when two people get married, usually you have established trust between each other based on big and small things. But trust is a troublesome issue. Trust is sometimes very strong, but it can also be very fragile. Because the premise of trust is “there is a possibility of betrayal and the possibility of being disappointed”, so trust is a kind of ability and a valuable quality. . In other words, trust is always windyRisky. When a person negotiates conditions in a relationship, “trust” is placed in a position of being questioned and tortured.

For example, pre-nuptial agreements have existed in the West for a long time. They have a habit of spreading things out, but this does not hinder their feelings. Of course, they also have their problems and also have troubles. But they are more accustomed to and more acceptable to “calculate when it’s time to do it.” And we prefer to use the default method. There is a culture in China. As long as we have a “good relationship”, we will not settle accounts. We may find it very appropriate to include a prenuptial agreement in love.

Traditional social stability is stronger, and the default method is likely to work. Today, the risk of the default approach has become higher. For example, for something, I thought it was the case, but it turned out that you didn’t think so, and I felt disappointed. But if you use the method of settling accounts, for example, if two people are getting married, one of them invites a lawyer, and the two sit together to sign a prenuptial agreement. When signing, one of them suddenly thinks, “What’s the matter?” Forget it, let’s not end it. Calculations may destroy some things. We can’t separate calculations from feelings and discuss matters separately. There seems to be an incompatibility between the part where we calculate rationally and the part where we are fully committed.

So, now is different from before. The relationship and marriage of two people need to be negotiated, and a contract is needed, but making an agreement in advance will damage the feelings. Twist all together, there will be many emotional issues waiting to be discussed.

At this time, some people will become “scum man” and “scum girl”. I haven’t understood the strict definitions of these two terms yet, but I think they are generalized, “make myself frustrated “The target of “, they are all scumbags or scumbags, so many people in this world can be called that way.

GQ Lab: In recent years, these young people have increasingly used words such as “scum man”, “scum girl”, “sea king” and “sea queen” when talking about feelings. What do you think of this phenomenon?

Liu Qing: This is the first time I heard “Sea King” and “Sea Queen”. I don’t know the context in which they are used. The biggest thing I learned from participating in the seventh season of “Wonderful Flowers” is that I learned a lot of “foreign languages”. In this new language environment, you young people are indigenous, and I am an immigrant.

GQ Lab: Being ambiguous and in love with different people at the same time. The male is the “Sea King”,Women are the “Queen of the Sea”.

Liu Qing: I understand that these words describe “non-specific”. I think there are two aspects here. One aspect is that people need to invent new words to conceptualize a phenomenon. After the phenomenon becomes complicated, it is very troublesome to start from the beginning, so people need concepts. But on the other hand, when any concept is fixed, it may become a cliché or stereotype. The reason why stereotypes spread is because it is convenient. We don’t need to start from the beginning when we encounter a phenomenon. This makes our communication more effective and allows us to deal with this complex world more conveniently.

Buzzwords like “scumbag, scumbag,” and “Sea King and Sea Queen”, I think they are a tool, a tool for self-help, providing certain judgments and reasons. The “disagreement of the three views” is similar, and may be a better reason or excuse. I think now, maybe because young people feel frustrated too easily, we have a lot of convenient self-help tools, it is like a toolbox, there are many ready-made reasons, there is always a suitable one for you. We took it out, I met Aquaman, I met a scumbag, I met a person with disagreements, and so on. This is also because there are indeed many typical cases in which these judgments are correct, and then we began to use them extensively. They can be spread, of course, because it is convenient and effective, and it seems to allow us to make judgments quickly.

This tool-based tendency certainly has its background. As we said earlier, concepts have their ins and outs, not out of nothing. The universalization of tools is related to the changes in ancient and modern times, and some basic concepts in modern society. I have talked about tool rationality in the lecture. I gave an example, saying that everyone’s value orientation and choices are many, but their attitude towards one thing is basically the same, that is, everyone thinks that money is good because it is always useful. This is not because people worship money, but because according to the logic of tool rationality, money is the most versatile tool. The popularity of some tagged words may be connected to this logic. But its problem is that not all fields and all contexts are only suitable for this tool, or are most suitable for this tool. For example, whether feelings should be treated and considered with labelled words may be a question.

Back to ourselves, we use these words to quickly make certain judgments, as if we cannot tolerate ourselves in an unknown anxiety state for too long, as long as this can calm us down, then it is good . But I think there is still a next step, to put aside the tools of these labels, to truly reflect on yourself. It’s not that everything is someone else’s fault, I finally got it right; It’s not that it’s all my fault, I’m in pain. Rather, we know that people are flawed and people can be wrong. I may make the same mistakes, but when I realize this, I may do better. Next time, the probability of making the same mistakes It will be smaller.

What is particularly interesting here is that today, we still cannot tolerate our own objects, partners, or possible partners and objects, fishing everywhere, casting nets everywhere, our “intolerance” is consistent with tradition. But what’s more interesting is that If “intolerance” is still the mainstream reference standard, why are so many people now disregarding this standard and going to “deviate”, “foul”, and become “scumbags” “Female”? There are ambiguities in it.

I think it’s very easy for people to condemn others nowadays. This is related to the decrease in people’s mental security. We will easily feel hurt, and it’s easier to watch out for and judge each other. In fact, we are afraid I was injured. Why is our sense of security so low? I think, on the one hand, this society is objectively more complicated. On the other hand, the younger generation may have been over-protected since childhood. Parents are only a little bit “cruel” to you on the matter of academic performance. Others are over-care and are not willing to hurt you a little bit. After you develop this habit, when you confide your own thoughts, once you are rejected, declined, or hesitate, you will be regarded as a kind of harm. We are not strong enough in this area, which adds to the complexity and insecurity when we look at the world.

Those who are judged as “scumbags” and “sea kings and queens” may be the same as the people who accused them. They may actually share the same set of logic, afraid of being hurt, and they all believe that in this world, their efforts are not necessarily rewarded, and they are likely to be disappointed. Therefore, in this state of mind, the emotional state chosen by both parties is ambiguous, and the two people have a bit of meaning to each other, but no one has given a definition to this relationship. “Together” has become a variable, an interactive state, floating at any time. For example, you may have a 50% chance of being with this person. Suddenly, if you don’t give you a gift on Valentine’s Day, 50% becomes 30%, and the two parties may not reach a consensus. It is easy to appear “scumbags” and “sea kings”. Queen of the Sea”.

A rational and self-interested attitude was originally good. But if everyone does this, it creates an environment where insecurities are generally spreading. This will make people’s interaction costs particularly high. Everyone is guessing, speculating, and skeptical…You send a WeChat message, he What does it mean to return to such an expression? Check Baidu and read the article, but it’s not necessarily correct. A culture of low security is not good for everyone.

I believe there areThe real “Sea King” or “Veteran in Love”, but there are too few such people, how can there be so much talk about it now? He will be schizophrenic, and such a person is not psychologically supported. Unless he is to achieve a higher goal, or has a higher mission, for example, he is a spy, on a certain mission and so on. Most people don’t want to be in such a state. Being a scumbag or a scumbag also requires talent. This kind of person uses other people as a tool to satisfy their hobbies and desires in a strict sense. He must have a very cold heart and be able to manipulate people.

GQ Lab: So the solution you gave in the book “Lectures on Western Modern Thought” is to encourage young people to take a bold leap.

Liu Qing: I don’t want to encourage the dumbfounded. I encourage true bravery. There is judgment in true bravery. Courage and judgment go hand in hand. It is precisely because your judgment cannot exhaust all the possibilities, risks and uncertainties are always there, so we need to be brave, so bravery is the virtue. But bravery and bravery without judgment-recklessness-must be distinguished clearly.

Moreover, bravery itself will shape relationships, and relationships will shape a person. This is true of love, and the same is true of good friends. You have to be willing to experience a relationship on your own, but when you encounter setbacks, you are not blaming yourself, but reflecting on yourself. The deepest, longest, and most beneficial thing for you is to combine painful emotions with rational reflection. It will reshape and nourish you. This is a very precious source, and you can finally become a better one. people. Otherwise, in a high-risk society, if you live with a very high safety standard, what can you do? You can only be alone.

I know that many people nowadays are single or unmarried. It’s not that they don’t associate at all, but they have their own base in their hearts. This space of self cannot be invaded. On this basis, it is also possible to communicate, but this type of communication is a partial and limited relationship, and there is no way to make people experience the beauty of the deepest feelings. Sometimes those good and moving love stories are precisely that the first two singles surrendered themselves because they were overwhelmed by love. Of course, maybe this is also a risk. I especially like the trilogy “Love Is in” by Ethan Hawke. The last two people who loved each other got married, but the halo was removed that year. They had quarrels and had children. The first and third parts of the movie are related. You need to have such a kind of very selfless love to have a lasting middle-aged and old age.

I wrote a film review for the movie “Road to Revolution”, saying that love is like revolution and marriage is like institution.During the revolution, there was no particularly strong rationality, and he listened to the call of his own soul. But living a life requires a lot of arrangements and mechanisms. This is governance. What everyone sees is that there will be a sense of disillusionment in a vigorous love until marriage. It is like the French Revolution, which created a system, which is actually very unsatisfactory. But if you really have a very good memory of love, even if it will be diluted in the long years of parents, it will definitely make you relive it at some point. It has its power.

So, in such a sad, pessimistic, and depressed atmosphere, why do people still watch those classic love stories? In fact, I still have a longing for it It’s just our appeal: we need a partner; at the same time, we are not willing to interfere with our autonomy and uniqueness. Because people are afraid of being alone, or living in the consequences of choices like loneliness, people must be strong.

What about this? Let me mention a background again. The relationship between people in modern society is “in the world”. These three words sound awkward, referring to the society in which people live, and at the same time implying that human life is an activity that occurs between people. When people in this society become more and more free, what we have in common is “talking to each other.”

I may be someone who believes in communication too much. There are two ways to face a conflict. Either use force to fight a fight to distinguish right from wrong, or you can stop contacting each other. The rest is conversation. So falling in love is talking, you have to talk, talking and communicating is an opportunity for change. Humans can change. We talked about existentialism in our book. Sartre said that humans have no essence, and that humans are constantly becoming who.

We need soul mates, pen pals, lovers, friends, etc. We need tolerant, understanding, and conversational relationships. The instrumental rationality mentioned earlier when talking about “scum men and women” has its own application areas. But human beings have a life world outside the “system”. This is about our freedom, dignity, love and justice.

The ideal relationship here is: The more you are yourself, the more you are loved by another person. Two-person “mini-communism” is possible, that is, “my greatest wish is to make you happy, so when I fulfill you, I have fulfilled my deepest hope.”

This article is from WeChat official account:GQ report (ID: GQREPORT) , Author: Lin small four, deer, interviews, Editor: Lin small four