richard gunderman on greed adam smith and leo tolstoy
Physician and careful reader Richard Gunderman of Indiana University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how Adam Smith and Leo Tolstoy looked at greed.
印第安纳大学的医生兼细心读者理查德·冈德曼 (Richard Gunderman) 与 EconTalk 主持人拉斯·罗伯茨 (Russ Roberts) 讨论了亚当·斯密 (Adam Smith) 和列夫·托尔斯泰 (Leo Tolstoy) 如何看待贪婪。
Drawing on Tolstoy's short story, "Master and Man," and adding some Thomas Hobbes along the way, Gunderman argues that a life well-lived requires us to rise above our lower desires.
冈德曼借鉴了托尔斯泰的短篇小说《大师与人》，并在其中加入了托马斯·霍布斯的一些内容，他认为，美好的生活需要我们超越较低的欲望。
Join Gunderman and Roberts for a sleigh ride into a snowy blizzard, where you won't find your way by following rules, but rather by recognizing what needs to be seen.
与冈德曼和罗伯茨一起乘坐雪橇进入暴风雪，在那里你不会通过遵守规则找到路，而是通过识别需要看到的东西来找到路。
Russ is right that Tolstoy is a horse aficionado.
拉斯说托尔斯泰是一位马迷是正确的。
But I think it is deeper that than.
但我认为这比这更深。
He uses the horse to illustrate the contrast between Vasili and Nikita.
他用马来说明瓦西里和尼基塔之间的对比。
Nikita treats the horse as a friend of some sort.
尼基塔把这匹马当作某种朋友。
They have a banter; they have a communication; they have a mutual respect.
他们有玩笑；他们有沟通；他们相互尊重。
At various points Nikita let’s the horse drive the sledge back to the road.
在不同的时刻，尼基塔让马把雪橇拉回路上。
Before hunkering down himself, Nikita wraps the horse in a blanket for the night.
在坐下之前，尼基塔用毯子把马裹起来过夜。
When the horse brings Vasili back to the Sledge after attempting to save himself, I read that as the horse acknowledging they are better off trying to survive with Nikita.
当马试图自救后将瓦西里带回雪橇时，我读到马承认他们最好与尼基塔一起生存。
Nikita loves the horse.
尼基塔喜欢这匹马。
He works the horse, but he treats it with respect.
他训练马，但他尊重它。
Nkita is to the Horse as Vasili is to Nikita.
恩基塔之于马，正如瓦西里之于尼基塔。
A Russian serf was similar to a farm animal in the hierarchy of Pre-Revolutionary Russia.
俄罗斯农奴类似于革命前俄罗斯等级制度中的农场动物。
Vasili does not care for Nikita’s comfort; he does not concern himself with the holes in his clothing; he does not bother to consult with Nikita on the prudent actions.
瓦西里并不关心尼基塔的舒适；他并不关心自己衣服上的破洞；他懒得与尼基塔协商谨慎的行动。
He only looks to Nikita when he is desperate, and even then grudgingly so.
他只在绝望时才会看向尼基塔，即便如此，他还是不情愿地如此。
He is the Master that does not care for the man.
他是不关心人的Master。
Nikita is the master that cares for his charges.
尼基塔是照顾他的孩子的主人。
At one point they pass another carriage that is full of celebrants that are drunk.
有一次，他们经过另一辆马车，车上挤满了喝醉的庆祝者。
They are driving their old donkey in an unseemly manner in the eyes of Nikita.
在尼基塔看来，他们赶着老毛驴的方式很不体面。
He has respect for the animal that the drunks do not.
他对动物怀有酒鬼所没有的尊重。
There is something there about the power of drink and Nikita’s recent conversion to sobriety, something that hints at the meanness in all of us.
酒精的力量和尼基塔最近转向清醒，都暗示着我们所有人的卑鄙。
But Nikita has turned away from his vice.
但尼基塔已经改掉了他的恶习。
Vasili maintains his, and he metaphorically beats Nikita with his sharp dealing.
瓦西里维持了他的立场，并且他用他敏锐的交易击败了尼基塔。
He does not respect an aging and over the hill servant.
他不尊重年老体衰的仆人。
Another theme of note is the glorification of the Russian peasant.
另一个值得注意的主题是对俄罗斯农民的颂扬。
Not so much in the life of being a peasant, but the attending to those around you, no matter their station in life, the mutual respect for your fellow man, the simple life that is focused on family.
与其说是农民的生活，不如说是对周围人的关心，无论他们的生活地位如何，对同胞的相互尊重，以及以家庭为中心的简单生活。
This is really Russ’s point about Smith and the mistake of focusing on the “glittering path.” Nikita is a good man, despite his mistakes.
这确实是拉斯关于史密斯的观点，以及关注“闪闪发光的道路”的错误。尼基塔是一个好人，尽管他也犯过错误。
He displays the kind of attitude and joy that we should aspire towards.
他表现出的态度和喜乐是我们应该向往的。
His treatment of the cooks wife when preparing to leave is an example of the way he was recognizes and relishes the people around him.
他在准备离开时对待厨师妻子的态度就是他认识和欣赏周围人的方式的一个例子。
It reminds me of War and Peace and the character of Platon Karataev.
它让我想起了《战争与和平》以及柏拉图·卡拉塔耶夫的角色。
Or even in In the First Circle, Spiridon Danilych.
甚至在《第一圈》中，Spiridon Danilych。
There is a focus on the wisdom found in the simplicity of those that want only for a peaceful and familial life.
重点关注那些只想过平静家庭生活的人的朴素中所蕴含的智慧。
A stark contrast to Vasili, Napoleon, or Stalin.
与瓦西里、拿破仑或斯大林形成鲜明对比。
There is even more to be said about the family dinner the two travelers attend and the family is ostensibly breaking apart.
关于两位旅行者参加的家庭晚宴，还有更多值得说的事情，而且这个家庭表面上已经破裂了。
But I will leave off with my amateur analysis there.
但我将不再进行我的业余分析。
Thanks for the reading inspiration and the thoughtful conversation about the human experience.
感谢您的阅读灵感和关于人类经验的深思熟虑的对话。
Great insights, Ethan.
伟大的见解，伊森。
Wonderful analysis.
精彩的分析。
I would also encourage the Tolstoy story “Pacesetter” (sometimes translated as “Strider ”), a story told from the perspective of the horse which as in “Master and Man,” allows Tolstoy to express some very perceptive observations about humans.
我还鼓励托尔斯泰的故事“标兵”（有时被翻译为“Strider”），这个故事是从马的角度讲述的，就像“主人与人”一样，让托尔斯泰表达了对人类的一些非常敏锐的观察。
Thanks Russ.
谢谢拉斯。
I have been reading a lot of Russians lately, Chekov and Turgenev especially.
我最近读了很多俄罗斯人的书，尤其是契诃夫和屠格涅夫的书。
Love Turgenev, but struggle a bit with Chekov grabbing me.
爱屠格涅夫，但契诃夫抓住我有点挣扎。
Will definitely read the Saunders for help there.
肯定会阅读桑德斯那里寻求帮助。
Excited to read Tolstoy recommendations as well.
我也很高兴阅读托尔斯泰的建议。
I am working my through the Levi and Ellison readings now.
我现在正在阅读莱维和埃里森的读物。
I appreciate this content.
我很欣赏这个内容。
Drives me to be a more critical reader and think about the ongoing conversation these authors are having.
促使我成为一名更具批判性的读者，并思考这些作者正在进行的对话。
The first Betts podcast blew me away.
第一个 Betts 播客让我大吃一惊。
Really looking forward to hearing from him again.
真的很期待再次听到他的消息。
This being a podcast, people who haven’t read “Master and Man” may prefer an audio version.
这是一个播客，没有读过《师父与人》的人可能更喜欢音频版本。
There’s a public domain recording of the Project Gutenberg version on Librivox , a service of the Internet Archive which finds volunteers to read Project Gutenberg books aloud.
Librivox 上有一个古腾堡计划版本的公共领域记录，Librivox 是互联网档案馆的一项服务，它寻找志愿者大声朗读古腾堡计划书籍。
Most podcast apps will understand this URL, allowing you to subscribe if you copy and paste it in:
大多数播客应用程序都会识别此 URL，如果您将其复制并粘贴到以下位置，则可以进行订阅：
My issue with Master and Man, (and the same issue I have with most shows on Netflix), is it’s reliance on an extremely one-dimensional (to the point of absurdity) dynamic character.
我对《Master and Man》的问题（以及我对 Netflix 上大多数节目的问题相同）是它对极其一维（到了荒谬的程度）动态角色的依赖。
No one in the real world behaves as Vassily in Master and Man.
现实世界中没有人像《师父与人》中的瓦西里那样行事。
As soon as I imagine a character this successful, then add to it his insane decisions in the middle of a Russian Blizzard, I have this nagging cognitive dissonance…
一旦我想象一个如此成功的角色，然后再加上他在俄罗斯暴风雪中做出的疯狂决定，我就会产生这种挥之不去的认知失调……
Someone intelligent enough to raise his status in life as Vassily has done, should at least have the ability to weigh the risks of travelling in such conditions vs earning a decent return on some Timber.
一个像瓦西里那样聪明到能提高自己生活地位的人，至少应该有能力权衡在这种条件下旅行的风险与在一些木材上获得可观的回报。
Anyone foolish enough to attempt it would not have risen to Vassily’s status, and anyone who had the patience, foresight, and wherewithal to succeed as Vassily would almost certainly have weighed the risks as MUCH GREATER than the potential reward…
任何愚蠢到尝试这样做的人都不会达到瓦西里的地位，而任何有耐心、远见和财力像瓦西里一样成功的人几乎肯定会权衡风险远大于潜在回报……
All that aside, to use such an obviously flawed story to try and prove that “Greed is bad”, and “Self Sacrifice is Holy”, is juvenile at best, and completely unhinged from the lives of capable, ambitious people who have grown up in poverty or lower class.
除此之外，用这样一个明显有缺陷的故事来试图证明“贪婪是不好的”和“自我牺牲是神圣的”，充其量是幼稚的，完全脱离了那些在贫困或下层阶级中长大的有能力、雄心勃勃的人的生活。
We don’t all have the luxury of being College Professors who can argue over whether “commensulism” (conversing while eating…) is an art, and if it’s more difficult as a host or a guest….
我们并不是所有人都有幸成为大学教授，可以争论“共餐主义”（边吃东西边交谈……）是否是一门艺术，以及作为主人或客人是否更困难……。
When you have to WORK to provide for yourself and your family these considerations quickly take a back seat to A: putting food on the table and B: eating as quickly and efficiently as possible to continue achieving A.
当你必须工作来养活自己和家人时，这些考虑因素很快就会退居二线：A：把食物摆上餐桌，B：尽可能快速有效地吃饭，以继续实现 A。
Same goes for attentiveness.
专注力也是如此。
Also, how can your best meal have been for the conversation??
另外，你最好的一顿饭怎么能是为了谈话呢？
My favorite meal makes it impossible to even FOCUS on conversation!
我最喜欢的一餐让我无法集中精力谈话！
You should both come over some time, when you taste the perfect medium-rare ribeye, one of my mom’s twice baked potatoes, some smoky, peaty Ardbeg…
你们俩应该找个时间过来，当你们品尝完美的三分熟的肋眼牛排、我妈妈两次烤的土豆之一、一些烟熏、泥炭味的阿贝……
you’ll be more lost in the wonderful flavors than Vassily and Nikita in that snowstorm…
在暴风雪中，你会比瓦西里和尼基塔更迷失在美妙的味道中……
In Atlas Shrugged, one of my favorite characters is Hank Rearden.
在《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》中，我最喜欢的角色之一是汉克·里尔登。
He developed a new type of steel, working long hours, studying, at times neglecting his family, building a successful business and creating jobs for hundreds of individuals.
他开发了一种新型钢铁，长时间工作、学习，有时忽视了家人，建立了成功的企业并为数百人创造了就业机会。
Yet his family see him as a horrible person for this success, and no matter how much of his time and energy he devotes to his wife/mother/brother, they continue to bemoan his lack of empathy for the poor, his social ineptitude, and his ‘disgusting’ self-interest in making money by selling his product.
然而，他的家人认为他的成功是一个可怕的人，无论他为妻子/母亲/兄弟投入了多少时间和精力，他们仍然抱怨他对穷人缺乏同情心，他的社会无能，以及他通过销售产品赚钱的“令人作呕”的自私自利。
He SUPPORTS them all through his ‘selfishness’, yet it is never enough for them.
他通过“自私”支持他们所有人，但这对他们来说永远不够。
Curious to hear you contrast this scenario to Vassily’s…
很高兴听到你将这个场景与瓦西里的场景进行对比……
If he spent more time with his family would he somehow be a better character?
如果他花更多的时间陪伴家人，他的性格会不会变得更好？
What if this meant less work on his farmstead so that 2 less laborers were needed, is it worth their livelihood that Vassily spends more time with his family?
如果这意味着他的农场工作减少，从而减少需要 2 个劳动力，那么瓦西里花更多时间陪伴家人是否值得他们的生计呢？
What if you actually have a shitty family, people who manipulate you and don’t really care about your well-being?
如果你实际上有一个糟糕的家庭，人们操纵你并且并不真正关心你的幸福怎么办？
Vassily’s supposed catharsis, feeling some meaning in his life for the first time by warming and protecting Nikita from the cold, is ham handed and poorly contrived.
瓦西里所谓的宣泄，通过温暖和保护尼基塔免受寒冷而第一次感受到生活中的一些意义，是火腿和拙劣的设计。
Allow me to once again suspend my disbelief as Vassily does a complete 180 from his life’s entire moral philosophy, with no hint of lessons learned to support this change.
请允许我再次暂停我的怀疑，因为瓦西里把他一生的整个道德哲学来了一个 180 度大转弯，却没有任何经验教训来支持这一改变。
It’s a nice idea, but falls flat when the character has no REASON to suddenly feel this way.
这是一个好主意，但当角色没有理由突然有这种感觉时，就会失败。
I guess you could argue his impending mortal end was the catalyst, but it’s just asinine to think Nikita AND Vassily are such bumbling oafs as to continue forging through a blizzard; no one behaves like that.
我想你可能会说他即将到来的死亡是催化剂，但认为尼基塔和瓦西里是笨手笨脚的傻瓜继续在暴风雪中前进的想法是愚蠢的；没有人这样做。
And if you want to show some fundamental truth about human nature, at least have your characters be human, and not just caricatures.
如果你想展示一些关于人性的基本真理，至少让你的角色是人，而不仅仅是漫画。
I’ll be honest, I don’t care whether Hobbes or Smith is more closely related to my ideas about ‘greed’, but anyone who tries, fails, tries again, fails again, and continues trying until they succeed, deserves all the wealth and success that comes their way, regardless of how revenant they are of those returns, and regardless of how they view their family and/or employees.
老实说，我不在乎霍布斯或史密斯是否与我关于“贪婪”的想法更密切相关，但任何尝试、失败、再次尝试、再次失败并继续尝试直到成功的人都应该获得所有的财富和成功，无论他们对这些回报有多么渴望，也无论他们如何看待他们的家庭和/或员工。
Without individuals like them, most businesses wouldn’t exist.
没有像他们这样的个人，大多数企业都不会存在。
No one starts a successful business working under 30 hours per week, browsing twitter and perusing websites on their paid-for ‘lunch break’.
没有人每周工作时间少于 30 小时，在付费“午休时间”浏览推特和网站，从而开创一家成功的企业。
I thought of this section of the story when I read your comments about Vasili and Hank Reardon.
当我读到你对瓦西里和汉克·里尔登的评论时，我想到了故事的这一部分。
But what have I done in these fifteen years?
但这十五年我到底做了什么？
A shop, two taverns, a flour-mill, a grain-store, two farms leased out, and a house with an iron-roofed barn,’ he thought proudly.
一家商店，两家酒馆，一家面粉厂，一家粮店，两座出租的农场，还有一座带铁顶谷仓的房子，”他自豪地想道。
‘Not as it was in Father’s time!
‘不像父亲那个时代！
Who is talked of in the whole district now?
现在全区都在谈论谁？
Brekhunov!
布列胡诺夫！
And why?
为什么？
Because I stick to business.
因为我坚持做生意。
I take trouble, not like others who lie abed or waste their time on foolishness while I don’t sleep of nights.
我喜欢麻烦，不像其他人那样，当我彻夜难眠时，躺在床上或把时间浪费在愚蠢的事情上。
Blizzard or no blizzard I start out.
无论有没有暴风雪，我都会开始。
So business gets done.
这样生意就完成了。
They think money-making is a joke.
他们认为赚钱就是个笑话。
No, take pains and rack your brains!
不行，要费尽心思，绞尽脑汁！
You get overtaken out of doors at night, like this, or keep awake night after night till the thoughts whirling in your head make the pillow turn,’ he meditated with pride.
晚上你会被赶出家门，就像这样，或者一夜又一夜地睡不着，直到你脑子里盘旋的想法让枕头转动，”他自豪地沉思道。
– Master & Man, part VI.
– 大师与人，第六部分。
Vasili is not Tolstoy’s Reardon.
瓦西里不是托尔斯泰的里尔登。
Vasili is a scoundrel – a cheat – who provides no stated benefits to the community.
瓦西里是一个恶棍——一个骗子——他没有为社区提供任何明确的好处。
Maybe Tolstoy wrote him as as one-dimensional because Master and Man is a parable on the fruit of avarice.
也许托尔斯泰把他写成一维的，因为《师父与人》是一个关于贪婪之果的寓言。
Atlas Shrugged is not a parable nor does it extol the vice virtue of greed.
《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》不是寓言，也不是歌颂贪婪的恶习。
The novel’s greedy characters (Lillian Rearden, Dr. Ferris, Wesley Mouch) are villainous, whereas our protagonists, Hank and Dagny, are productive, useful and admirable.
小说中贪婪的角色（莉莲·里尔登、费里斯博士、韦斯利·莫奇）是邪恶的，而我们的主角汉克和达格尼却富有成效、有用且令人钦佩。
Sure, Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggart are self-interested, and they may not care about the unfortunate humanity; but their desire to profit through legitimate enterprise sets them apart from the corrupt, rent-seeking, blackmailing characters.
当然，汉克·里尔登和达格妮·塔格特都是自私的，他们可能不关心不幸的人类；但他们通过合法企业获取利润的愿望使他们有别于腐败、寻租、勒索的人物。
Whatever Rand’s personal views of greed were (and I think she was deeply mistaken about the meaning of the word), I doubt she’d agree with your sentiment that cheating and stealing is okay because #poverty.
无论兰德对贪婪的个人看法是什么（我认为她对这个词的含义深深地误解了），我怀疑她会同意你的观点，即欺骗和偷窃是可以的，因为#poverty。
And I think many poor persons would object to your characterization that they’re too busy consuming calories to have a party once in a while.
我认为许多穷人会反对你的描述，即他们太忙于消耗卡路里而无暇偶尔参加一次聚会。
Please disregard my poor person statement, that was my own insecurity and the liquor talking…
请忽略我可怜的人的说法，那是我自己的不安全感和酒说话......
Vassily provides no stated benefits to the community?
瓦西里没有为社区提供任何明确的好处吗？
Your own quote betrays you: “A shop, two taverns, a flour-mill, a grain-store, two farms leased out”, if those are not benefits to the community then you must be living in a utopia.
你自己的引言出卖了你：“一家商店，两家酒馆，一家面粉厂，一家粮店，两个出租的农场”，如果这些对社区没有好处，那么你一定生活在乌托邦中。
Where does the text say Vassily has stolen to gain any of that?
文中哪里说瓦西里通过偷窃来获得这些东西？
My definition of Stolen means using force or the threat of force to take property which belongs to another.
我对被盗的定义是使用武力或武力威胁来夺取属于他人的财产。
If he doesn’t do that, then he can tell his neighbor pretty much anything he wants to get him to sell his Timber; they are both individuals, capable of entering a contract, for whatever price Vassily is willing to pay and which his neighbor is willing to sell; Caveat Emptor.
如果他不这样做，那么他几乎可以告诉他的邻居任何他想让他卖掉他的木材的事情；他们都是个人，有能力签订合同，无论瓦西里愿意支付什么价格，他的邻居也愿意出售什么价格；买者自负。
I find the examples of his ‘cheating/stealing’ unconvincing: Using church funds to finance the Timber sale – Perhaps he has an agreement with the church?
我发现他的“欺骗/偷窃”例子缺乏说服力：使用教会资金来资助木材销售——也许他与教会有协议？
(Being such a successful businessman, maybe they allow his use of their cache for a nominal rate) Furthermore, if Vassily is really ‘stealing’ and ‘cheating’ his neighbors/customers to fuel his greed, wouldn’t word get out?
（作为一个如此成功的商人，也许他们允许他以名义价格使用他们的缓存）此外，如果瓦西里真的“偷”和“欺骗”他的邻居/顾客来助长他的贪婪，消息不会传出去吗？
Why would people continue using his products/services if he is really as horrible as you’d have me believe?
如果他真的像你让我相信的那样可怕，为什么人们会继续使用他的产品/服务？
Yet another flaw in this story…
这个故事的另一个缺陷......
One I’m sure Smith or Hayek would notice immediately.
我确信史密斯或哈耶克会立即注意到这一点。
On Atlas Shrugged, how many flour-mills, grain-stores, or shops do Mouch, Lillian, or Ferris (hereby MLF) operate?
在《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》中，Mouch、Lillian 或 Ferris（以下简称 MLF）经营着多少家面粉厂、谷物店或商店？
Rand is right that they are to be looked down on, but not for the reasons you state: The heroes of Rand’s novels compete and succeed in free market enterprises, besting the competition and worse, government legislation designed to stop them.
兰德说他们应该被轻视，这是正确的，但不是因为你所说的原因：兰德小说中的英雄在自由市场企业中竞争并取得成功，在竞争中获胜，更糟糕的是，政府立法旨在阻止他们。
MLF do not provide a beneficial product or service, they use crony capitalism and government intervention (and in Ferris’ case Higher Education ‘Expert-ism’/Bureaucracy) to succeed, which, if they were honest and said their goal was to advance their own status/progeny, they would still be ok in my book (Though a far cry from Hank or Dagny..), However – they claim their interest is in the ‘greater good’, which sets off my Bologna-meter.
MLF不提供有益的产品或服务，他们利用裙带资本主义和政府干预（在费里斯的案例中是高等教育“专家主义”/官僚主义）来取得成功，如果他们诚实并说他们的目标是提高自己的地位/后代，他们在我的书中仍然没问题（尽管与汉克或达格尼相去甚远......），然而 - 他们声称他们的兴趣是“更大的利益”，这引发了我的博洛尼亚米。
Regardless, I can’t criticize them any more than I can a poor person who takes advantage of welfare or food stamps, they are looking out for number one, and it is the system which allows this ‘gaming’ to happen which deserves all criticism.
无论如何，我不能批评他们，就像我不能批评一个利用福利或食品券的穷人一样，他们正在寻找第一，而正是允许这种“游戏”发生的制度值得所有批评。
Similarly, I place no blame on Vassily bribing the surveyor if this is a common practice in Russia in the 1700s; the criticism should be with a governmental system which allows or encourages this behavior.
同样，如果瓦西里贿赂测量员是 1700 年代俄罗斯的常见做法，我也不会责怪瓦西里。批评应该针对允许或鼓励这种行为的政府系统。
And if this surveyor is an independent contractor, I still don’t blame Vassily – But it IS remarkable that such a surveyor stays in business if his reputation is so easily bought…
如果这位测量员是独立承包商，我仍然不会责怪瓦西里 - 但如果他的声誉如此容易被收买，这样的测量员还能继续经营下去，这是值得注意的……
We do not need to make excuses for Vasili’s behavior.
我们不需要为瓦西里的行为找借口。
Tolstoy establishes within the story that Vasili is a bit of a crook.
托尔斯泰在故事中指出瓦西里有点骗子。
In the fifth sentence, we learn that the owner of the grove is offering 10K rubles “simply because Vasili was offering 7.” The youthful landowner does not know the value of his own property, but knows Vasili (at least by reputation) and if Vasili is offering 7, then it must be worth a lot more.
在第五句话中，我们得知树林的主人愿意出价 10K 卢布，“仅仅因为瓦西里出价 7 卢布”。年轻的地主不知道自己财产的价值，但了解瓦西里（至少在声誉上），如果瓦西里出价7，那么它的价值一定更高。
Is Vasili simply a good negotiator?
瓦西里只是一个优秀的谈判者吗？
No, because Tolstoy tell us Vasili has already colluded to artificially price fix, and that Vasili might bribe the surveyor to devalue the land, and that a portion of the deposit is coming from the church.
不，因为托尔斯泰告诉我们瓦西里已经串通人为地操纵价格，瓦西里可能会贿赂测量员使土地贬值，而且一部分押金来自教堂。
Speaking of the church money, Tolstoy wants us to know these are alms given in accordance with the Feast of St. Nicholas (in my opinion).
说到教堂的钱，托尔斯泰希望我们知道这些是根据圣尼古拉斯盛宴而施舍的（在我看来）。
Vasili is a church elder and thus has access to the money.
瓦西里是一名教会长老，因此有权获得这笔钱。
What should be used for the poor, Vasili takes for personal gain.
本该用于穷人的东西，瓦西里却拿来谋取私利。
It is a large stretch to imagine Vasili’s use of church funds as “per agreement” rather than theft.
如果认为瓦西里“按照协议”使用教会资金而不是盗窃，那就有点夸张了。
And it is theft, even without the use of force.
即使没有使用武力，这也是盗窃。
St. Nicholas pops-up again at the end of our story as Vasili solicits the saint for a miracle in exchange for his life.
圣尼古拉斯在我们故事的结尾再次出现，瓦西里请求圣人创造奇迹，以换取他的生命。
Tolstoy injects another of Vasili’s misdeeds: the candles Vasili sold to the church for the feast.
托尔斯泰还注入了瓦西里的另一项恶行：瓦西里将节日蜡烛卖给教堂。
These seem to become the source or focus of anxiety in Vasili’s dreams/visions as he is dying.
这些似乎成为瓦西里临死时梦/幻象中焦虑的根源或焦点。
Tolstoy uses the candles (which symbolize the Light of Christ) and St. Nicholas (a symbol both for temperance and favor to oppressed over their oppressors) to reveal the fault of Vasili’s character.
托尔斯泰用蜡烛（象征着基督之光）和圣尼古拉斯（象征着节制和偏爱受压迫者）来揭示瓦西里性格的错误。
Why, if Vasili is so bad, do the people continue to use his products or services?
如果瓦西里这么糟糕，为什么人们还继续使用他的产品或服务？
Here are a few possible explanations:
以下是一些可能的解释：
What is seen vs. what is unseen.
所见与所见。
The community knows he’s swindling them, but look at the shop, the taverns!
社区里的人都知道他在欺骗他们，但看看商店、酒馆！
They settle for the goods Vasili provides because they lack the calculation or imagination to understand the trade-offs.
他们满足于瓦西里提供的商品，因为他们缺乏计算或想象力来理解权衡。
Lack of alternatives.
缺乏替代方案。
1870s rural Russia is awash with snow, not options.
1870 年代的俄罗斯乡村被大雪覆盖，没有选择。
Nikita himself is nearly a slave and does not receive compensation as a laborer in the way we expect in the 21st century.
尼基塔本人几乎是一个奴隶，并没有像我们在21世纪所期望的那样获得作为劳动者的补偿。
He knows he is underpaid (and often unpaid), but he admits he has no other option and does what he must.
他知道自己的薪水过低（而且常常没有薪水），但他承认自己别无选择，只能做他必须做的事。
They are Russian.
他们是俄罗斯人。
Speaking of doing what one must, there is this kind-of-fatalistic attitude of the story’s characters.
说到必须做的事情，故事中的人物就有一种宿命论的态度。
I think the word “must” appears well over 40 or 50 times.
我认为“必须”这个词出现了超过 40 或 50 次。
Here’s an example:
这是一个例子：
We must go to the right,’ he said sternly and peremptorily, as he turned the horse.
我们必须向右走。”他一边调转马头，一边严厉而专横地说。
‘Well, if it’s to the right, go to the right,’ said Vasili Andreevich.
“好吧，如果它在右边，那就往右边走，”瓦西里·安德烈耶维奇说。
I see this in Crime and Punishment and In the First Circle, though those are my only other exposures to Russian literature.
我在《罪与罚》和《第一圈》中看到了这一点，尽管这是我对俄罗斯文学的唯一接触。
So, if Vasili is a cheat, then he is a cheat.
所以，如果瓦西里是个骗子，那么他就是个骗子。
He is who he is.
他就是他。
And who is to change any of that?
谁来改变这一切？
I admit that I could be wrong about all of them.
我承认我对所有这些的看法可能都是错的。
I’m not sure it really matters.
我不确定这是否真的重要。
To me, Master and Man is a parable.
对我来说，师父与人是一个寓言。
The oppressor eats the fruit of his own labor and the result is death.
压迫者吃掉自己的劳动成果，结果就是死亡。
I agree with you, slightly, that the end is a bit ham-handed.
我稍微同意你的看法，结局有点笨拙。
But it is still interesting to consider the implications of a Master being placed in position of a simple man (i.e. a peasant) when his agency is taken-away.
但考虑一下当大师的代理权被剥夺时，他被置于一个简单人（即农民）的位置所带来的影响仍然很有趣。
That is really Vasili’s “redemption;” not a religious or Christ calling, but a recognition of the plight of one’s less fortunate fellow man.
这确实是瓦西里的“救赎”；这不是宗教或基督的召唤，而是对不幸同胞的困境的认识。
Agreed on just about every front, I admit I had only inattentively listened to the story before the EconTalk episode, and upon a closer reading you are absolutely correct; Vasili is at least guilty of stealing the alms and probably more.
我承认我在 EconTalk 剧集之前只是漫不经心地听了这个故事，而且仔细阅读后，你是绝对正确的；瓦西里至少犯有偷窃施舍罪，甚至可能更多。
No doubt 1870s Russia is a different world compared to what you or I can imagine today.
毫无疑问，1870 年代的俄罗斯与你我今天的想象相比是一个不同的世界。
Russ is fond of saying “the only thing stopping people from getting out of poverty is a briefcase” (I probably butchered it but basically moving away from poor communities with no opportunities to more urban areas with many opportunities); Must be all but impossible in 1800s Russia.
拉斯喜欢说“唯一阻止人们摆脱贫困的是一个公文包”（我可能把它宰了，但基本上是从没有机会的贫困社区搬到有很多机会的城市地区）；在 1800 年代的俄罗斯，这几乎是不可能的。
One of my biggest flaws while reading fiction is getting overly concerned with practical applications of stories, and simply taking as gospel logically inconsistent facts as the author presents them (as is probably obvious from my comments above..) After listening to this story, I spent some time trying to think about a way this story could be modernized.
我在阅读小说时最大的缺陷之一是过于关注故事的实际应用，并且简单地将作者呈现的逻辑上不一致的事实视为福音（从我上面的评论中可能显而易见......）听完这个故事后，我花了一些时间尝试思考如何使这个故事现代化。
The only thought I had was if a medical manufacturing business owner died, and his son inherited the company, and the father’s last words were something like “Make sure it stays profitable…” And the son started swindling their suppliers, cutting employee benefits, cutting corners on manufacturing the product; basically increasing margins but at the cost of sales and quality, and then ironically the son has some horrible disease and the hospital he is admitted at uses his company’s products which he cut corners on, and it fails and he dies…
我唯一的想法是，如果一个医疗制造企业的老板去世了，他的儿子继承了公司，而父亲的遗言是“确保它保持盈利……”，儿子开始欺骗他们的供应商，削减员工福利，在制造产品时偷工减料；基本上是增加利润，但以销售和质量为代价，然后讽刺的是，儿子得了一些可怕的疾病，他住的医院使用他公司的产品，他偷工减料，结果失败了，他死了……
(I’m not Tolstoy…) Anyway Tolstoy’s point is well taken, and I think your takeaway is accurate; pursuit of profit above all inevitably leads to self destruction, though I think all humans engage in self destructive behavior in one form or another, so making as much money as you can before you implode might not be the worst way to go.
（我不是托尔斯泰……）无论如何，托尔斯泰的观点很好，我认为你的结论是准确的；对利润的追求首先不可避免地会导致自我毁灭，尽管我认为所有人都会以某种形式进行自我毁灭行为，所以在崩溃之前赚尽可能多的钱可能不是最糟糕的方法。
The real question we should all be asking is: Would you rather be Nikita or Vasili?
我们都应该问的真正问题是：你愿意成为尼基塔还是瓦西里？
Ah.
啊。
This is a good question and I’ve been thinking about it since reading your comment.
这是一个好问题，自从阅读您的评论以来我一直在思考这个问题。
There is some goodness in the simple Nikita and so I can honestly say I would rather aspire to be Nikita.
简单的尼基塔身上也有一些善良，所以我可以诚实地说，我宁愿成为尼基塔。
But, I think I’d rather be Vasili and have his money.
但是，我想我宁愿成为瓦西里并拥有他的钱。
My answer might be different if I’d never tasted wealth – if I had always and only known poverty.
如果我从未尝过财富的滋味——如果我一直且只知道贫穷，我的答案可能会有所不同。
But I guess I’d rather be Vasili and hope that I could have a chance at redemption than be Nikita and never hope to be comfortable.
但我想我宁愿成为瓦西里，希望自己能有救赎的机会，也不愿成为尼基塔，永远不希望过得舒服。
Anyway, it sounds like you’ve a good premise for a new novel.
不管怎样，听起来你为一本新小说提供了一个很好的前提。
Good luck!
祝你好运！
Conversations wander and arrive sometimes at points of surprisingly great interest.
谈话时而徘徊，时而到达令人惊讶的极大兴趣点。
This happens in this conversation a number of times.
这种情况在这次谈话中多次出现。
At one such point Dr. Richard Gunderman speaks about the highlight of a kind of communal dining in which conversation becomes more central than the food, and in which the real enrichment is of the heart and mind.
在这一点上，理查德·冈德曼博士谈到了一种公共用餐的亮点，在这种用餐中，谈话变得比食物更重要，而真正的丰富是内心和思想的丰富。
He regrets the decline in such conversations and attributes a certain part of it to the Internet and Smart-Phone world where people prefer to dine alone with their own machines.
他对此类对话的减少感到遗憾，并将其中的一部分归因于互联网和智能手机世界，人们更喜欢用自己的机器独自用餐。
Russ Roberts agrees and yet qualifies by saying how much he can enjoy the time with himself and his own projects when taking a meal.
拉斯·罗伯茨（Russ Roberts）对此表示同意，但他也表示，在吃饭时他可以多么享受与自己和自己的项目共处的时光。
I would add another somewhat discouraging point.
我想补充另一个有点令人沮丧的观点。
How many boring meals have we gone through sitting next at a table to people we cannot spark up any real conversation of interest with?
我们已经经历了多少次无聊的饭菜，坐在桌子旁边，而我们却无法与那些无法引发任何真正感兴趣的谈话的人一起吃饭？
How many times have we been bored alone with our own machine and longed for human company and conversation?
有多少次我们对自己的机器感到厌倦，并渴望人类的陪伴和对话？
Is it all as simple as ‘Different strokes for different folks at different times and places?
难道这一切就像“不同的人在不同的时间和地点有不同的笔触”那么简单吗？
And even for the same person at different times and places?
即使是同一个人在不同的时间和地点？
And here another point, that doesn’t it much depend on the character and quality of what we are taking interest in?
还有一点，这不是很大程度上取决于我们感兴趣的事物的特征和质量吗？
I think there is a modestly large genre of art that is the opposite of lying on your deathbed wishing you had spent less time at the office.
我认为有一种相当大的艺术流派与你临终时希望自己少花点时间在办公室相反。
Call it “The Young Wastrel.” A young life wasted on various forms of irresponsibility and selfishness – substance abuse chief among them.
称之为“年轻的浪费者”。年轻的生命被各种形式的不负责任和自私所浪费——其中最主要的是药物滥用。
Sometimes the wastrel turns his life around like Scrooge.
有时，浪子会像斯克鲁奇一样扭转自己的生活。
Sometimes he dies unaware like Vasili.
有时他会像瓦西里一样不知不觉地死去。
In any case, he would be better off spending more time at the office.
无论如何，他最好在办公室多呆一些时间。
Would it matter whether Jeff Bezos counts his money with his spare thoughts or contemplates all the thriving consumers whose lives he has improved?
杰夫·贝佐斯是用闲暇的心思数钱，还是考虑他改善了生活的所有蓬勃发展的消费者，这重要吗？
Those are two sides of the same coin.
这是同一枚硬币的两面。
In the story, we have a largely hypothetical world where that coin has only one side.
在故事中，我们有一个很大程度上是假设的世界，其中硬币只有一面。
I for one am grateful that Russ spent hours ignoring his family to write about Adam Smith.
我很感激拉斯花了几个小时无视他的家人来写亚当·斯密。
I’m ok if he takes a moment to count the extra money he’ll leave to his kids.
如果他花点时间算一下他留给孩子们的额外钱，我没问题。
I doubt in his final years he’ll regret those extra hours at the office.
我怀疑在他的最后几年里，他会后悔在办公室的额外工作时间。
The humor and brilliance of Tolstoy is revealed in the subtle details that cleverly foreclose any benefit we might assign to Vasily’s counterparties.
托尔斯泰的幽默和才华体现在微妙的细节中，这些细节巧妙地排除了我们可能分配给瓦西里交易对手的任何利益。
But let’s not let the story stop us from attending to consumer surplus, innovation, and social thriving that hitch their wagon to wealth and status seeking.
但我们不要让这个故事阻止我们关注消费者剩余、创新和社会繁荣，这些都将推动他们追求财富和地位。
It would matter, and they are not sides of the same coin.
这很重要，而且它们不是同一枚硬币的两面。
There are many ways to enrich consumers without profit to oneself and there are many ways to harm others while benefiting monetarily.
有很多方法可以使消费者致富而不为自己带来利润，也有很多方法可以在获得金钱利益的同时伤害他人。
Vasili Andreevich Brekhunov is in the latter case.
瓦西里·安德烈耶维奇·布列胡诺夫属于后一种情况。
His scheming provides no consumer surplus.
他的阴谋没有给消费者带来剩余。
Indeed, he enriches himself through cheating the peasants of his community.
事实上，他通过欺骗社区的农民来致富。
E.g.: trimming candles in the church and reselling them; using church funds to procure private land; overcharging Nikita for a horse and pretending it’s a kindness.
例如：在教堂修剪蜡烛并倒卖；使用教会资金购买私人土地；向尼基塔收取一匹马的高价，并假装这是一种善意。
This isn’t gains through trade.
这不是通过贸易获得的收益。
It’s theft.
这是盗窃。
I too am glad that Russ “ignored” his family to write How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life ,” but the adage about deathbed wishes isn’t that one never spent time in the office.
我也很高兴拉斯“无视”他的家人写了《亚当·斯密如何改变你的生活》，但关于临终愿望的格言并不是说一个人从来没有在办公室待过。
I think most people understand this sentiment to mean that those additional hours probably cost more than benefited in the long run.
我认为大多数人都理解这种情绪，即从长远来看，这些额外的时间成本可能大于收益。
There is another aspect of Vasili’s philosophy revealed in section VI, after he decides they can no longer proceed on their journey.
在瓦西里决定他们不能再继续他们的旅程之后，第六节揭示了瓦西里哲学的另一个方面。
That is that gain is achieved through pain.
也就是说，收获是通过痛苦获得的。
“Because I stick to business.
“因为我坚持做生意。
I take trouble…” And then, “Blizzard or no blizzard I start out.
我会遇到麻烦……”然后，“无论有没有暴风雪，我都会开始。
So business gets done.
这样生意就完成了。
They think money-making is a joke.
他们认为赚钱就是个笑话。
No, take pains and rack your brains!” So while he is driven by material gain, he also believes that he overcomes them because he is willing to sacrifice / take pains.
不行，要费尽心思，绞尽脑汁！”因此，尽管他受到物质利益的驱使，但他也相信自己能够克服它们，因为他愿意牺牲/付出努力。
He further explains that God rewards him for his sacrifice, “Take pains and God gives.”
他进一步解释说，上帝奖励他的牺牲，“付出努力，上帝就会赐予。”
It would seem that in the end, Vasili’s transformation is a change of priorities from material gain to a higher purpose – but his philosophy / his methods are still the same — Gain (saving Nikita) is achieved through pain (sacrificing his life).
看来瓦西里的转变最终是从物质利益到更高目标的转变——但他的哲学/他的方法仍然是一样的——收获（拯救尼基塔）是通过痛苦（牺牲自己的生命）来实现的。
Vasili was always willing to sacrifice (endure pain) to achieve his objectives.
瓦西里总是愿意牺牲（忍受痛苦）来实现他的目标。
Tolstoy story reveals the transformation of his purpose.
托尔斯泰的故事揭示了他的目的的转变。
I’ve been paying interest to Tolstoy for some considerable time…through which he’s become very ambiguous but his art more pure.
我对托尔斯泰的兴趣已经有相当长的一段时间了……通过这段时间，他变得非常模糊，但他的艺术更加纯粹。
He treated his wife miserably during his lifetime, often denying the spiritual/emotional value and connection of romantic love.
他生前对待妻子很痛苦，经常否认浪漫爱情的精神/情感价值和联系。
One would not be far off concluding that he treated the beasts of the field better than those who prepared his meals and made clean a place to lay his head.
人们不难得出这样的结论：他对待田野里的野兽比那些为他准备饭菜和清理他的头的地方的人更好。
It may have been a matter of philosophical consistency that he did not think of his his children with benevolence, charity, and protective attention.
他没有以仁慈、慈善和保护性的关注来看待他的孩子，这可能是一个哲学上的一致性问题。
Like those who see the problems of this world as cataracts constrict vision(inequality primarily) he seemed unable to imagine a world that salvages the best parts of society and reforms those that are morally abhorrent.
就像那些将这个世界的问题视为限制视野的白内障（主要是不平等）的人一样，他似乎无法想象一个能够挽救社会最好的部分并改革那些道德上令人憎恶的部分的世界。
He likely strongly rejected the romantic constructs that preceded his time.
他可能强烈拒绝他那个时代之前的浪漫主义观念。
As with so many artful individuals, they force a melancholy on viewers when they fail to rebuild after razing a construct.
与许多狡猾的人一样，当他们在摧毁建筑物后未能重建时，会给观众带来忧郁。
The short story is a masterpiece of artistically combining epistemological questions (what is the meaning of life?) with metaphysical questions ( to be or not to be?) and eventually ethical questions (how should I live my life?) in a way that traditional study – especially academic study so often parcels into separate disciplines.
这部短篇小说是一部杰作，它将认识论问题（生命的意义是什么？）与形而上学问题（存在还是毁灭？）以及最终的伦理问题（我应该如何生活？）以传统研究（尤其是学术研究）经常划分为不同学科的方式结合起来。
The prior comments by a reader about Nikita really added to my appreciation of the story and his relationship with the horse.
一位读者之前对尼基塔的评论确实增加了我对这个故事以及他与马的关系的欣赏。
When Ayn Rand is discussed I always remember her early novel – We The Living – where her heroine -Kira Argounova- dies trying to escape communist Russia – dying in the snow – affirming the choice of a true, real life even if it cost her possessions and meant her untimely death.
当讨论安·兰德时，我总是记得她早期的小说《我们活着》——其中她的女主人公基拉·阿尔古诺娃试图逃离共产主义俄罗斯——死在雪地里——肯定了对真实生活的选择，即使这会失去她的财产并意味着她的英年早逝。
Thanks for your podcast.
感谢您的播客。
I’ve become a regular listener, and enjoy it a lot.
我已经成为一名固定的听众，并且非常喜欢它。
This is the first time I’ve started a podcast, stopped it to read something at the host’s suggestion, and then returned to the podcast.
这是我第一次开始播客，按照主持人的建议停下来读一些东西，然后再回到播客。
This is a tribute to the quality of your work, and your abilities as a teacher.
这是对您的工作质量和作为教师的能力的赞扬。
Thank you!
谢谢！
I was surprised that you did not address the crux of “Master and Man,” which I take to be that despite Vasili’s bad faith and bad intentions, he dies saving Nikita’s life.
我很惊讶你没有解决“主人与人”的症结所在，我认为这就是尽管瓦西里的恶意和恶意，他还是为了拯救尼基塔的生命而死。
There is something haunting in this, and it seems to gently question the foundations of Christianity, as if to obliquely ask if Jesus was really so perfect.
这其中有一些令人难以忘怀的东西，它似乎在温和地质疑基督教的基础，仿佛在间接地询问耶稣是否真的如此完美。
Vasili literally lays down his life for a friend, but this is troubling because we have such insight into his real character.
瓦西里确实为朋友献出了自己的生命，但这令人不安，因为我们对他的真实性格有如此深入的了解。
It dawned on me that “Master and Man” is the main inspiration for “Groundhog Day”!
我恍然大悟，《师父与人》才是《土拨鼠之日》的主要灵感来源！
Vasili’s epiphany mirrors that of Tolstoy’s in the Crimean war, during which he came to the conclusion that simple soldiers were certainly better individuals than their officers leading so many of the former to their senseless deaths.
瓦西里的顿悟与托尔斯泰在克里米亚战争中的顿悟相呼应，在这场战争中，他得出的结论是，简单的士兵肯定比他们的军官更好，导致许多前者毫无意义地死亡。
It is the rich and selfish Vasili who has this life redeeming revelation while Nikita is physically saved but goes on to live another twenty years of a predictable and unoriginal life.
富有而自私的瓦西里获得了这一生的救赎启示，而尼基塔的身体得到了拯救，但又继续过着可预见的、非原创的二十年生活。
I can’t help but feel that Tolstoy divides the world into the mean and selfish, caricatured, their victims, somewhat idealized, and people like him, Tolstoy, to whom the truth has been revealed and who thus are the truly elevated ones.
我情不自禁地感觉到，托尔斯泰把世界分为卑鄙、自私、讽刺的人、他们的受害者、有些理想化的人，以及像他、托尔斯泰这样的人，真相已经向他们揭示，因此他们是真正崇高的人。
Unfortunately this has become such a common trope, as Russ pointed out.
不幸的是，正如拉斯指出的那样，这已经成为一种常见的比喻。
But the story is exquisite nonetheless.
但故事还是很精彩。
EconTalk Extra, conversation starters for this podcast episode:
EconTalk Extra，本播客剧集的对话开头：
Additional ideas and people mentioned in this podcast episode:
本播客节目中提到的其他想法和人物：
A few more readings and background resources:
更多阅读材料和背景资源：
* As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
* 作为亚马逊合作伙伴，Econlib 通过符合条件的购买赚取收入。
Russ Roberts: Today is March 9th 2022 and my guest is Richard Gunderman.
拉斯·罗伯茨：今天是 2022 年 3 月 9 日，我的嘉宾是理查德·冈德曼。
He is Chancellor's Professor of Radiology, Pediatrics, Medical Education, Philosophy, Liberal Arts, Philanthropy, and Medical Humanities, and Health Studies at Indiana University.
他是印第安纳大学放射学、儿科、医学教育、哲学、文科、慈善、医学人文和健康研究领域的校长教授。
Richard, welcome to EconTalk.
理查德，欢迎来到 EconTalk。
Richard Gunderman: It's a pleasure to be with you.
理查德·冈德曼：很高兴和你在一起。
Russ Roberts: Our topic for today is greed as seen through the work of Adam Smith and Leo Tolstoy with some Hobbes thrown in.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我们今天的主题是通过亚当·斯密和列夫·托尔斯泰以及霍布斯的著作所看到的贪婪。
I want to start with the Tolstoy story--that you focused on in your essay--"Master and Man." And, before I begin, for listeners, if you haven't read the story yet, please do before you go any longer on this episode.
我想从托尔斯泰的故事开始——您在文章中重点讨论了这个故事——“大师与人”。而且，在我开始之前，对于听众来说，如果您还没有读过这个故事，请在继续阅读本集之前先读一下。
Just hit pause if you can.
如果可以的话，就按一下暂停。
The story is a masterpiece.
这个故事是一部杰作。
You can only read it once without knowing how it's going to turn out, so consider pausing and reading the story.
你只能读一遍而不知道结果如何，所以考虑暂停并阅读这个故事。
You can find it online, an excellent translation.
网上可以找到，翻译得很好。
We go have a link up to it with this episode, but again, you can just Google 'Master and Man Tolstoy' and you will find it.
我们将在这一集中提供一个链接，但同样，你只需谷歌“大师和托尔斯泰”，你就会找到它。
I also want to recommend the remarkable book by George Saunders, A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, which is an analysis of a number of Russian short stories and it's glorious.
我还想推荐乔治·桑德斯的那本出色的书《雨中池塘里游泳》，这本书分析了一些俄罗斯短篇小说，非常精彩。
Go read it, even if you don't like Russian stories.
即使您不喜欢俄罗斯故事，也可以去读一下。
He got me to like Chekov--I never did.
他让我喜欢契诃夫——我从来没有喜欢过。
Saunders is a master teacher and if you read his book, you will feel like you're in his classroom.
桑德斯是一位大师级教师，如果你读他的书，你会感觉就像在他的教室里一样。
So, Richard, let's start with the character of Vasili.
那么，理查德，让我们从瓦西里这个角色开始吧。
I don't know how to pronounce it.
我不知道如何发音。
If you want to correct that, please do.
如果你想纠正这个问题，请这样做。
What kind of person is he?
他是一个什么样的人？
What do we know about him?
我们对他了解多少？
And, what does Tolstoy want us to think about him?
托尔斯泰希望我们如何看待他？
Richard Gunderman: Well, I would say he's a person whose identity is bound up with his wealth.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我想说他是一个身份与其财富紧密相连的人。
He measures his life, the significance of his life, the purpose of his life in terms of how much money he's made.
他用赚了多少钱来衡量他的生活、他生活的意义、他生活的目的。
He likes to compare himself to people he's known and relishes the fact that he's managed to make a good deal of money over the course of his life, to this point.
他喜欢将自己与他认识的人进行比较，并很高兴到目前为止他在一生中已经赚了很多钱。
And, he also thinks a lot about people he knows, who have made a great deal of money like the Muranos, who've made millionaires of themselves.
而且，他也很关心他认识的人，他们像穆拉诺家族一样赚了很多钱，他们自己也成为了百万富翁。
Russ Roberts: And, there's a type of person like that.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，有这样一种人。
And, I think Tolstoy would say, we all have a little bit of that in ourselves.
而且，我想托尔斯泰会说，我们身上都有一点这样的特质。
We enjoy material success.
我们享受物质上的成功。
And, I think in the case of Vasili, he likes keeping score.
而且，我认为就瓦西里而言，他喜欢记分。
It's not just that he's got a nice comfortable life--which he does.
这不仅仅是因为他过着舒适的生活——他确实如此。
He's got a couple of coats and his poor servant, who he is going to spend this evening, that the story relates, has one, and it's got holes in it.
他有几件外套，故事里提到的他今晚要和他一起度过的可怜仆人也有一件，但上面有洞。
So, there's this contrast constantly in the story between the master, Vasili, and his servant Nikita.
因此，主人瓦西里和他的仆人尼基塔之间的故事不断存在着这种对比。
Nikita has very little.
尼基塔拥有的东西很少。
In fact, he's often in debt, either because of his drinking problems in the past.
事实上，他经常负债累累，要么是因为过去的酗酒问题。
He's put those, it seems, behind him, when the story starts.
当故事开始时，他似乎已经把这些抛在了身后。
But as an employee of Vasili, he's often getting--he's getting paid in kind.
但作为瓦西里的员工，他经常得到实物报酬。
He's got a very tough material life.
他的物质生活非常艰苦。
His wife is living with someone else and his child--and his life has a lot of troubles.
他的妻子和别人以及他的孩子住在一起——他的生活遇到了很多麻烦。
And, on the surface, Vasili seems to be remarkably comfortable.
而且，从表面上看，瓦西里似乎非常舒服。
What do you think Tolstoy wants us to think of this man, Vasili?
你认为托尔斯泰希望我们如何看待瓦西里这个人？
Richard Gunderman: Well, I think Vasili doesn't really love his wife very much.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我认为瓦西里并不是很爱他的妻子。
In fact, she's referred to as his 'unloved wife.' And, when he looks on his son, he sees his heir.
事实上，她被称为他的“不受欢迎的妻子”。而且，当他看着他的儿子时，他看到了他的继承人。
He thinks of his son as his heir, implying he's the person to whom his wealth will pass.
他认为儿子是他的继承人，这意味着他的财富将传给他。
And, I think Vasili sees himself as an exceptional person, better than essentially everybody he knows, and operates with a sense of invincibility.
而且，我认为瓦西里认为自己是一个杰出的人，基本上比他认识的每个人都好，并且带着一种不可战胜的感觉。
That, he's on the path to greatness: that greatness is going to be measured by his wealth; and those around him just don't get it.
他正走在通往伟大的道路上：伟大将由他的财富来衡量；而他周围的人就是不明白。
You know, he looks on others with disdain because they don't realize that you have to devote your every waking moment to building your wealth.
你知道，他蔑视其他人，因为他们没有意识到你必须把醒着的每一刻都用来积累财富。
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I think he literally says--Tolstoy literally says--that Vasili thinks of his son as his heir.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，我认为他字面意思是——托尔斯泰字面意思——瓦西里认为他的儿子是他的继承人。
Now, of course, he is his heir, presumably.
当然，现在他大概是他的继承人了。
But, the fact that he expresses it in that language is a way of saying that he sees him as an object--the conduit through his wealth will flow.
但是，他用这种语言表达这一点的事实是在表达他将自己视为一个对象——通过他的财富的管道将会流动。
What's wrong with that?
这有什么问题吗？
I mean so, okay, so Vasili is a little bit materialistic.
我的意思是，好吧，所以瓦西里有点物质主义。
He's really into sharp dealing.
他真的很喜欢敏锐的交易。
He enjoys very much getting a deal, taking advantage of someone in negotiation--literally taking advantage of them or ideally out-negotiating them.
他非常喜欢达成交易，在谈判中利用某人——真正利用他们，或者理想情况下通过谈判战胜他们。
But, he's very eager to cut quarters[corners?] if he can.
但是，如果可以的话，他非常渴望节省开支。
We have a pretty vivid picture of the man, I'd say.
我想说，我们对这个人有一个非常生动的描述。
So, what's wrong with that?
那么，这有什么问题吗？
I mean, what's the big deal?
我的意思是，有什么大不了的？
So, he's into money.
所以，他就是喜欢钱。
Is there a problem with that?
这有问题吗？
Richard Gunderman: Well, for one thing is, as you said, Russ, he wants to get the best possible deal, which means that he will emerge with the most profit and the person he's dealing with will be taken advantage of to the fullest extent possible.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，正如你所说，拉斯，他希望获得尽可能最好的交易，这意味着他将获得最大的利润，而与他打交道的人将被最大程度地利用。
For example, as the story opens, it's the day after St. Nicholas' Day, and he's headed to buy a grove, a stand of trees.
例如，当故事开始时，这是圣尼古拉斯节的第二天，他要去买一片小树林，一片树林。
And, he's already plotted in his mind how he will take advantage of the landowner, including outright deception and fraud.
而且，他已经在心里盘算着如何利用地主的利益，包括公然的欺骗和欺诈。
He's going to pay the surveyor what to him is a token sum of money and get the surveyor to decrease the number of trees and the amount of acreage, so that he can make the purpose at an even greater profit.
他将付给测量员一笔对他来说象征性的钱，并让测量员减少树木的数量和面积，这样他就可以实现更大的利润。
And, so, this is somebody who--I'm going to use a term I don't understand very well--but who I think kind of sees life as something like a zero-sum game.
所以，这个人——我将使用一个我不太理解的术语——但我认为他将生活视为零和游戏。
There's this fixed amount of resources that's going to be redistributed and he wants to emerge with as many resources, as wealthy as he possibly can.
固定数量的资源将被重新分配，他希望拥有尽可能多的资源，尽可能富有。
And doesn't really concern himself about the welfare of the people with whom he's dealing.
并且并不真正关心与他打交道的人的福祉。
Russ Roberts: In fact, his relationship with Nikita is really quite extraordinary.
拉斯·罗伯茨：事实上，他和尼基塔的关系确实非同寻常。
There's a handful, 10 maybe, maybe two handfuls of conversation between the two.
两人之间有过几次，也许十次，也许两次谈话。
The whole story takes place on their journey to this grove of trees on a windy and snowy night.
整个故事发生在一个风雪交加的夜晚，他们前往这片树林的旅途中。
And, I didn't count them on my Kindle, but the word 'snow' is mentioned an extraordinary number of times, as is the word 'wind' or 'windy'.
而且，我没有在 Kindle 上计算它们，但“雪”这个词被提到的次数非常多，“风”或“有风”这个词也是如此。
And, if you do read the story, I recommend that you read it in a warm place, ideally with a big fire blazing, because you're going to get cold reading the story.
而且，如果你确实读了这个故事，我建议你在温暖的地方阅读，最好是有熊熊大火，因为读这个故事你会感到寒冷。
Part of the artistry of the story is that in many ways, it's repetitive.
这个故事的艺术性部分在于它在很多方面都是重复的。
It's deliberately repetitive.
这是故意重复的。
And often that wears out the reader.
这常常会让读者感到疲惫不堪。
In this case, to me, it just deepens and enforces--reinforces--the lessons and maybe we'll come back to that.
在这种情况下，对我来说，它只是加深和强化——强化——教训，也许我们会回到这一点。
But, okay, so he's a sharp dealer.
但是，好吧，所以他是一个精明的经销商。
He likes negotiating and taking advantage of other people.
他喜欢谈判和利用别人。
I was going to say, he brags to himself that he's going to sell the horse at a price that's way beyond what it's actually worth.
我想说的是，他向自己吹嘘说他将以远远超出其实际价值的价格出售这匹马。
But, he's kind of leaning Nikita and Nikita is his employee and Nikita didn't have a lot of options in life, so it's kind of a tough deal to turn down.
但是，他有点倾向于尼基塔，而尼基塔是他的雇员，而尼基塔在生活中没有太多选择，所以这是一笔很难拒绝的交易。
Nikita knows he's being taken advantage of.
尼基塔知道他被利用了。
We get his inner thoughts that, 'Yeah, here's another time the boss is going to take advantage of me.'
我们了解到他内心的想法，“是的，老板又要利用我了。”
And, the part that's [bittersweet?]--sort of tragicomic about it is that Vasili acts like he's a good guy.
而且，[苦乐参半？]——有点悲喜剧的是，瓦西里表现得好像他是一个好人。
Like, he thinks pretty well of himself.
比如说，他对自己的看法很好。
It's not just that he's really great at business and negotiating, but yeah, he treats people pretty fairly, more or less, is the way it sort of describes it.
这不仅是因为他非常擅长商业和谈判，而且是的，他对待人们相当公平，或多或少，这就是它所描述的方式。
And, says so to poor Nikita, who kind of shrugs, takes it, and moves on.
而且，对可怜的尼基塔这么说，尼基塔耸耸肩，接受了，然后继续前进。
It's not the best relationship.
这不是最好的关系。
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
It's the art of the deal.
这是交易的艺术。
And, I think you're right.
而且，我认为你是对的。
Vasili is a master of self-deception.
瓦西里是一位自欺欺人的大师。
He sees himself in his own eyes as a very good master, as a very good steward of his resources, and really takes comfort in the knowledge that he's better than everyone else.
他认为自己在自己眼中是一个非常好的主人，是他的资源的一个非常好的管家，并且当他知道自己比其他人都更好时，他真的感到很安慰。
But, as we see over the course of the story, he's really not a steward.
但是，正如我们在故事的过程中看到的那样，他实际上并不是一个管家。
He's an exploiter.
他是一个剥削者。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
It reminds me a little bit of The Death of Ivan Ilych, which another story of Tolstoy's I recommend.
这让我想起了《伊凡·伊里奇之死》，我推荐托尔斯泰的另一个故事。
And, the charm--it's powerful--'charm' is not quite the right word--the effectiveness of the story, I would say, comes from the disconnect between how the main character sees himself and how we, as the reader, are able to see him.
而且，魅力——它是强大的——“魅力”这个词不太合适——我想说，故事的有效性来自于主角如何看待自己和我们作为读者如何看待他之间的脱节。
The brilliance of Tolstoy is he doesn't say, 'Look at this hypocrite.' He doesn't say, 'Look at this self-deceiving person.' He just slowly gives you his inner thoughts, describes what he does, and we, as the reader, see the man more fully than the man sees himself.
托尔斯泰的高明之处在于他没有说：“看看这个伪君子。”他没有说：“看看这个自欺欺人的人。”他只是慢慢地向你讲述他的内心想法，描述他所做的事情，而我们作为读者，比他自己更全面地了解这个人。
It's quite amazing.
真是太神奇了。
Russ Roberts: Before moving on to Hobbes and Adam Smith, I want to say one thing about the story.
拉斯·罗伯茨：在继续讨论霍布斯和亚当·斯密之前，我想就这个故事说一件事。
I mentioned the repetitive nature.
我提到了重复性。
So, the wind is always blowing.
所以，风总是在吹。
The snow is always piling up.
雪总是堆积如山。
They can't see anywhere.
他们看不到任何地方。
They get lost numerous times.
他们迷路了很多次。
In fact, they start off at one point--early in the story, they start off and they end up in a town.
事实上，他们从某个时刻开始——在故事的早期，他们开始并最终到达一个小镇。
They leave--they go through the town; and some number of hours later they're back because it's so snowy and blizzardy that they they've gotten lost.
他们离开——他们穿过城镇；几个小时后，他们回来了，因为大雪纷飞，他们迷路了。
And, they stop there for a while and sort of regain their wellbeing.
而且，他们在那里停留了一段时间，并恢复了健康。
They have some tea and alcohol and they sit in front of a warm fire.
他们喝了一些茶和酒，坐在温暖的炉火前。
And they're asked to stay, but they go back out again.
他们被要求留下来，但他们又出去了。
And, why do you think Tolstoy has that second--two trips through this town?
而且，你认为托尔斯泰为什么要第二次——两次穿越这个城镇？
Why couldn't he just, okay, they stop in the town.
为什么他不能只是，好吧，他们在城里停下来。
There's some interesting things that happen in the town, really interesting things.
镇上发生了一些有趣的事情，非常有趣的事情。
It's relevant to the story.
这与故事有关。
We learn a lot more again about the character's attitudes, both of them, Vasili and Nikita.
我们再次了解了更多关于瓦西里和尼基塔这个角色的态度。
But, why do you think Tolstoy has them get lost there twice?
但是，你认为托尔斯泰为什么让他们两次在那里迷路呢？
And, each time, by the way, each time he passes through town, at least three of the times, he sees it's a terrible image of frozen clothing on the line, drying.
顺便说一句，每次他经过城镇时，至少有三次，他都会看到一幅可怕的画面，衣服被冻在晾线上，正在晾干。
Of course, it's not drying: it's frozen and it's waving wildly, desperately in the wind.
当然，它不是干燥的：它是冰冻的，在风中拼命地疯狂地摇曳。
And, George Saunders, in A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, says it's a signal.
乔治·桑德斯 (George Saunders) 在《雨中池塘里游泳》一书中说，这是一个信号。
'Hey, it's bad times here, folks.
“嘿，伙计们，现在的日子不好过。
Don't keep going.
别再继续了
Stop.' And, they just ignore it.
停下来。而且，他们只是忽略它。
In fact, the shirt is a white shirt, like surrender, and it's sort of a hint like 'Surrender,' and they refuse.
事实上，这件衬衫是一件白衬衫，就像投降一样，这有点像“投降”的暗示，但他们拒绝了。
They just keep going.
他们只是继续前进。
Because, there's money to be made.
因为，有钱可赚。
And Vasili, he's afraid some other competitor will get the grove that he's interested in taking from this guy at a good price.
而瓦西里，他担心其他竞争对手会以优惠的价格从这个家伙那里得到他有兴趣的树林。
Why do you think Tolstoy does that?
你认为托尔斯泰为什么这么做？
Richard Gunderman: That's a great point.
理查德·冈德曼：这是一个很好的观点。
Vasili's wife, Nikita, the peasant family he visits in the village--all of them warn him not to go.
瓦西里的妻子尼基塔、他拜访的村里的农民家庭——所有人都警告他不要去。
'Can't you just wait a day?
“你就不能等一天吗？
Maybe two days?' But, Vasili is eager to make the deal.
也许两天？但是，瓦西里渴望达成这笔交易。
He can't think about anything else.
他无法思考任何其他事情。
He's worried that some other purchaser will show up in the meantime.
他担心其他买家会同时出现。
Kind of a ridiculous notion.
有点可笑的想法。
They'd have to be as crazy as he is to travel in this weather, but he's afraid the deal will be taken out from under him, so he insists on going.
在这种天气下旅行，他们一定会像他一样疯狂，但他担心这笔交易会被取消，所以他坚持要去。
And, as you say, he sees those clothes on the line, he sees wormwood, which is kind of a traditional memento mori , a sign of our mortality, but he doesn't see what those signs mean.
而且，正如你所说，他看到了那些挂在绳子上的衣服，他看到了艾草，这是一种传统的死亡象征，是我们死亡的标志，但他不明白这些标志意味着什么。
He can basically just see the dollar signs--
他基本上只能看到美元符号——
Richard Gunderman: that completely fill up his field of view.
理查德·冈德曼：这完全填满了他的视野。
And, it blinds him--not just to the safety of others, to his responsibilities as a husband and father--but it blinds him to his own safety.
而且，这不仅让他看不到他人的安全，也让他看不到他作为丈夫和父亲的责任，也让他看不到自己的安全。
And, that's an excessive, I think, desire to make money.
而且，我认为这是一种过度的赚钱欲望。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
The point I wanted to make about the repetition or the recurrence of images and the passing through the town more than once.
我想表达的观点是关于图像的重复或重现以及不止一次穿过城镇。
A set of unpleasant things happen to them more than once.
一系列不愉快的事情不止一次地发生在他们身上。
They go off the road more than once, the horse gets lost more than once, the horse gets worn out more than once.
他们不止一次偏离道路，马不止一次迷路，马不止一次疲惫不堪。
They're being pulled on a sledge by a horse.
他们被一匹马拉在雪橇上。
And, by the way, Tolstoy is really into horses.
顺便说一句，托尔斯泰非常喜欢马。
He has a lot to say about interacting with horses, taking care of them.
关于与马互动、照顾马，他有很多话要说。
And, in many ways, the horses are the heroes of the story.
而且，从很多方面来说，马都是故事中的英雄。
They're always put upon and you sympathize with them.
他们总是被穿上，你同情他们。
But, those recurrences for me are Tolstoy is saying something about the nature of life.
但是，对我来说，这些重复是托尔斯泰在谈论生命的本质。
That for some of us and at some stretches in our life, we just make the same mistakes over and over again, because we're not paying attention.
对于我们中的一些人来说，在我们生命中的某些阶段，我们只是一次又一次地犯同样的错误，因为我们没有注意。
Either we're blinded by the draw, the pull of the deal or the money that you mention, or we just don't notice that we're making these mistakes over and over again.
要么我们被吸引、交易的吸引力或你提到的金钱蒙蔽了双眼，要么我们只是没有注意到我们正在一遍又一遍地犯这些错误。
The irony of the story is that Nikita is the dirt-poor peasant.
这个故事的讽刺之处在于尼基塔是一个赤贫的农民。
He has a lot more sense than Vasili out in the wild, in the natural world.
在野外、自然世界中，他比瓦西里更有理智。
In the natural world, you really want to be with him and not with Vasili.
在自然世界中，你真的想和他在一起，而不是和瓦西里在一起。
You want to be with Nikita.
你想和尼基塔在一起。
And, yet in his own world, the world of Vasili, he's a master.
然而，在他自己的世界，瓦西里的世界里，他是一位大师。
He's spectacularly skilled.
他的技术非常出色。
And, I think what Tolstoy is trying to tell us is that there's a lot of things in life besides--obviously besides money.
而且，我认为托尔斯泰试图告诉我们的是，生活中还有很多东西——显然除了金钱之外。
But even the more general idea that there are other things in life that are going on and you need to have an awareness of a richer and fuller picture of what's important, is driven home by those repetitive scenes.
但即使是更普遍的想法，即生活中还有其他事情正在发生，你需要对重要的事情有一个更丰富、更全面的认识，这些重复的场景也让你明白了这一点。
It's almost comic, if it weren't tragic.
如果不是悲剧的话，这几乎是喜剧。
It's the--they get plenty of chances to redeem themselves, and they just--they miss most of them.
他们有很多机会来救赎自己，但他们却错过了其中的大部分。
So, I found that very powerful.
所以，我发现这非常强大。
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
Vasili is a big fish in a small pond and as long as he can keep his life perspective, frame his life in that small pond, he's a fabulous success whose prospects are as bright as they can be.
瓦西里是小池塘里的大鱼，只要他能保持自己的人生观，将自己的生活定格在小池塘里，他就是一个巨大的成功，前景是无比光明的。
But, once you take him outside of the village, remove him from his property, even though he has 3000 rubles in his pocket--and by the way, 2300 of which are borrowed from the church.
但是，一旦你把他带出村子，就把他从他的财产中带走，即使他口袋里有3000卢布——顺便说一句，其中2300卢布是从教堂借的。
He happens to have these 2300 rubles in his possession.
他恰好有这2300卢布。
But, once he gets out--you know, you think of King Lear on the heath, Act III of Shakespeare's King Lear, the naked human being out in the elements.
但是，一旦他出去了——你知道，你会想到荒原上的李尔王，莎士比亚的《李尔王》第三幕，赤身裸体的人类在户外。
You know, under not only the starry night sky, but in the midst of a blizzard, all of a sudden it's not clear which way is north.
要知道，不仅是在繁星点点的夜空下，就是在暴风雪中，突然分不清哪条路是北边。
All of a sudden it's not clear what your buildings and manufacturing facilities and investment portfolio really amount to in that kind of context.
突然之间，你就不清楚你的建筑物、制造设施和投资组合在这种情况下到底意味着什么。
And, I think it's that being taken out of that context, that plays an essential role in helping Vasili to see what's really real, so to speak.
而且，我认为正是从这种背景中取出来，可以说在帮助瓦西里看到什么是真正真实的方面发挥着重要作用。
He comes to realize that he's been living in something of a fantasy world or with too narrow a range of view.
他开始意识到自己一直生活在一个幻想的世界里，或者视野太狭隘了。
And, being out there in those circumstances confronting death itself changes his view of life.
而且，在那些面对死亡的环境中，他对生活的看法也发生了改变。
Russ Roberts: Yeah, I guess it's not that subtle to point out that Vasili is lost in many ways, not just physically and that night, but more generally.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，我想指出瓦西里在很多方面都迷失了，不仅仅是身体上和那天晚上，而是更广泛的方面。
I forgot about the 2300 rubles: it's an amazing thing.
我忘记了 2300 卢布：这是一件了不起的事情。
It's in the first paragraph or so, maybe second paragraph.
它在第一段左右，也许是第二段。
It says, 'Oh, he had 2300 rubble from the church.' That he's, like, the steward--he's, like, the treasurer of the church--and he has 700 of his own.
上面写着：“哦，他从教堂拿走了 2300 块瓦砾。”他就像是管家——他就像是教会的财务主管——而且他自己有 700 个。
And, Tolstoy doesn't even give it an aside.
而且，托尔斯泰甚至没有把它放在一边。
He just states the facts.
他只是陈述事实。
He took 2300 rubles of the church money, added 700 of his own, so he had 3000 rubles.
他拿了教会的钱2300卢布，再加上自己的700卢布，这样他就有了3000卢布。
And, the price he's intending to pay is above that.
而且，他打算付出的代价还要高于这个价格。
It's clearly the down payment.
这明明是首付啊
But, he never explains what he's thinking, I guess, because he doesn't have to.
但是，我猜他从来没有解释过他的想法，因为他没有必要这样做。
We just realize, 'Oh, he is a dishonest person, and he feels entitled to take the money that isn't his and use it for this purpose,' even though, and maybe, he intends to pay it back.
我们只是意识到，“哦，他是一个不诚实的人，他觉得有权拿不属于他的钱并将其用于此目的”，尽管他可能打算偿还。
We don't know.
我们不知道。
It's left totally unstated.
它完全没有说明。
It's crazy.
太疯狂了。
Richard Gunderman: I think Tolstoy really places demands on us as readers.
理查德·冈德曼：我认为托尔斯泰确实对我们读者提出了要求。
I spent much of my life thinking the moral life was a matter of right and wrong.
我一生的大部分时间都在思考道德生活是非对错的问题。
There's some things you're supposed to do.
有些事情你应该做。
Other things you're clearly not supposed to do.
其他你显然不应该做的事情。
As long as you follow those rules, you're okay.
只要你遵守这些规则，就没有问题。
But, Tolstoy isn't going to tell us what's right or wrong.
但是，托尔斯泰不会告诉我们什么是对或错。
The story doesn't open with Vasili Andreevich Brekhunov was a greedy bad man--
故事的开头并不是瓦西里·安德烈耶维奇·布列胡诺夫是一个贪婪的坏人——
Richard Gunderman: He just tells us what's on the Vasili's mind.
理查德·冈德曼：他只是告诉我们瓦西里的想法。
And this is classic Tolstoy.
这是托尔斯泰的经典。
He presents little clues, hints, asides, subordinate clauses that actually reveal everything.
他提供的线索、暗示、旁白和从句实际上揭示了一切。
But, the question is: Can we see them?
但是，问题是：我们能看到它们吗？
I mean, for Tolstoy, I think the moral life is much less than that or of following of rules, and much more a matter of noticing .
我的意思是，对于托尔斯泰来说，我认为道德生活远不只是遵守规则，而更多的是注意的问题。
Paying attention to, recognizing what needs to be seen or heard or felt.
关注、认识到需要看到、听到或感受到的东西。
And of course, Vasili misses opportunity after opportunity to do so.
当然，瓦西里一次又一次地错过了这样做的机会。
And, I hate to use the word 'symbolize,' but in a way, as you say, is symbolized by the fact he's constantly traveling in circles while he's in that blizzard.
而且，我讨厌使用“象征”这个词，但在某种程度上，正如你所说，他在暴风雪中不断绕圈旅行这一事实就象征了这一点。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
I just want to mention one other Tolstoy short story, which I love, called "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" This ["Master and Man"--Econlib Ed.] is a long story.
我只想提一下托尔斯泰的另一篇短篇小说，我很喜欢它，叫做《一个人需要多少土地？》这[“大师与人”——Econlib Ed.]是一个很长的故事。
It's a very long story.
这是一个很长的故事。
It's called--I think you'd call it a novella.
它叫——我想你会称它为中篇小说。
It's something like 50, 60 pages, meaning, dozens of pages.
大概有 50、60 页，也就是说，有几十页。
I don't remember exactly how long it is.
我不记得具体有多长了。
But, "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" is a similar story.
但是，“一个人需要多少土地？”是一个类似的故事。
It's about five pages, but it's also beautifully told.
大约有五页，但讲述得也很精彩。
He has an ability to build up tension and concern, just with--effortless.
他有能力毫不费力地营造紧张和担忧。
It appears to be effortless.
看起来毫不费力。
I'm sure it's a craft he worked very, very hard at.
我确信这是他非常非常努力的一门手艺。
Russ Roberts: Well, let's turn to Hobbes and Smith.
拉斯·罗伯茨：好吧，让我们转向霍布斯和史密斯。
What would Thomas Hobbes think about the character Vasili, the person, the man?
托马斯·霍布斯会如何看待瓦西里这个人物、这个人、这个男人？
Would he judge him?
他会评判他吗？
Tolstoy clearly wants us to see him as a failed human being--a man who is lost, who is traveling in circles, who is not paying attention.
托尔斯泰显然希望我们把他视为一个失败的人——一个迷失的人，一个原地踏步、不专心的人。
And we're going to come back to paying attention in a little bit.
我们稍后会回来关注。
But, what would Hobbes think of him?
但是，霍布斯会怎么看他呢？
Richard Gunderman: Well, if you read Leviathan , I think Hobbes thinks we're fundamentally egoists.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，如果你读过《利维坦》，我想霍布斯认为我们本质上是利己主义者。
First, as a matter of description, we all put ourselves first.
首先，作为描述，我们都把自己放在第一位。
And second, even normatively, I think now, Hobbes thinks that we are to put ourselves first when we make decisions.
其次，即使是在规范上，我认为霍布斯现在也认为我们在做决定时应该把自己放在第一位。
So, the fact Vasili is constantly thinking of himself and trying to make a profit--in fact, as big a profit as he can in all his deals--is in a way the natural state of human beings.
因此，瓦西里不断地为自己着想并试图赚取利润——事实上，他在所有交易中尽可能地赚取大利润——在某种程度上是人类的自然状态。
And, one we'll probably never be able to transcend.
而且，我们可能永远无法超越。
Russ Roberts: Well, you could argue--you don't--but you could argue that Adam Smith feels the same way.
拉斯·罗伯茨：嗯，你可以争论——你不会——但你可以争论亚当·斯密也有同样的感觉。
Adam Smith certainly is a strong believer in self-interest.
亚当·斯密无疑是个人利益的坚定信徒。
Certainly believes we have a tendency to put ourselves first.
当然相信我们有把自己放在第一位的倾向。
His famous example, we've talked about many times on the program, of the person who hears about the loss of millions of lives in China due to a natural catastrophe might say something, 'Oh, that's terrible.' Might think about it for a minute.
我们在节目中多次谈到过他的著名例子，当一个人听说中国因自然灾害而失去数百万人的生命时，可能会说，“哦，那太可怕了。”可能会考虑一下。
Might worry about where his factory is, if it's near China and the earthquake.
可能会担心他的工厂在哪里，是否靠近中国和地震。
But he's going to sleep like a baby.
但他会像婴儿一样睡觉。
On the other hand, if you tell him he's going to have to have an operation tomorrow--he's going to lose his little finger--he won't be able to sleep.
另一方面，如果你告诉他他明天必须接受手术——他将失去小指——他将无法入睡。
And, so, Smith clearly understood that, and I think he's right about both those two things.
所以，史密斯清楚地理解了这一点，我认为他对这两件事的看法都是正确的。
I think, he understood human beings very well.
我想，他非常了解人类。
Isn't that Hobbes' view?
这不是霍布斯的观点吗？
I mean, is Smith any different?
我的意思是，史密斯有什么不同吗？
Richard Gunderman: Well, I think Hobbes thinks that we are like billiard balls on a pool table.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我认为霍布斯认为我们就像台球桌上的台球。
Basically, atoms that occasionally knock into each other, but our natural status is that of isolated entities.
基本上，原子偶尔会相互碰撞，但我们的自然状态是孤立的实体。
And, our primary view of each other, I think, is one of fear, for Hobbes.
而且，我认为，对于霍布斯来说，我们对彼此的主要看法是恐惧。
We have to be afraid of each other.
我们必须互相害怕。
Somebody may come and take our stuff or even take our life.
有人可能会来拿走我们的东西，甚至夺走我们的生命。
And, that's why we need to form governments--Leviathan--to protect human beings from taking undue advantage of each other: creating Hobbes' so-called state of nature, where life is solitary, poor, nasty British, and short.
而且，这就是为什么我们需要组建政府——利维坦——来保护人类免遭彼此不正当的利用：创造霍布斯所谓的自然状态，在这种状态下，生命是孤独的、贫穷的、肮脏的英国式的、短暂的。
My reading of Smith--and by the way, you're much more of a Smith scholar than I--but is that Smith thinks we're born into a world where cooperation, collaboration, sympathy are natural to us.
我对史密斯的解读——顺便说一句，你比我更像一个史密斯学者——但史密斯认为我们生在一个合作、协作、同情对我们来说是自然的世界。
We are born into networks or tapestries of human relationships.
我们生来就生活在人际关系的网络或挂毯中。
And, that's why cooperation and collaboration come so naturally to us.
这就是为什么合作与协作对我们来说如此自然。
I think Hobbes would be building his fortress, but Smith might be building some kind of cooperative or collaborative endeavor that redounds to the advantage of both parties.
我认为霍布斯会建造他的堡垒，但史密斯可能会建立某种合作或协作的努力，这对双方都有好处。
Russ Roberts: So, I just want to make the exclamation point of this.
拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，我只想对此表示感叹号。
I think both Hobbes and Smith think that human beings are mostly self-interested.
我认为霍布斯和史密斯都认为人类大多是自利的。
But, what you're adding is that that is in conflict, often, with getting along in a world that's filled with other people.
但是，你要补充的是，这通常与在一个充满其他人的世界中相处是冲突的。
And, we don't just bang into people as billiard balls.
而且，我们不只是像台球那样撞人。
We care about them.
我们关心他们。
We love them.
我们爱他们。
We are sometimes afraid of them.
我们有时会害怕他们。
We work with them in many collaborative ways to build things in commercial enterprises and nonprofits that try to help other people.
我们以多种协作方式与他们合作，在商业企业和非营利组织中构建试图帮助他人的东西。
The essence of life is that we are a social animal--human beings--and economists have kind of ignored that, more or less.
生命的本质是我们是一种社会动物——人类——而经济学家或多或少地忽视了这一点。
Economists are always looking at, 'What's in it for me?' That is the economist's view.
经济学家总是在关注“这对我有什么好处？”这是经济学家的观点。
What's in it for me could include the satisfaction from helping someone else.
对我来说，这可能包括帮助别人所带来的满足感。
But, what I think is in Smith--and I think any thoughtful person who is not an economist--is that we also care about doing the right thing sometimes even when it doesn't redound to our well-being directly.
但是，我认为史密斯——我认为任何一个不是经济学家的有思想的人——是，我们有时也关心做正确的事情，即使它不会直接增加我们的福祉。
You can try to shove that back into the model and say, 'Oh, well, doing the right thing is what gives you pleasure.' And, I disagree with that.
你可以尝试将其推回到模型中并说：“哦，好吧，做正确的事情会给你带来快乐。”而且，我不同意这一点。
And, I argue instead that a lot of times we do things that aren't fun, don't give us pleasure.
而且，我认为很多时候我们做的事情并不有趣，不会给我们带来快乐。
We wish we could keep the wallet we find in the street and buy something with the money.
我们希望能够保留在街上找到的钱包并用这些钱买东西。
But, we think it's the wrong thing to do, so we give it back; and we're not really happy about it because I wanted the money.
但是，我们认为这样做是错误的，所以我们将其退还；我们对此并不满意，因为我想要钱。
But, some of us give the money back.
但是，我们中的一些人退还了钱。
Give the wallet, find the owner and give the wallet back.
交出钱包，找到失主并将钱包归还。
And, Tolstoy, I think, how would Tolstoy fit into that?
而且，托尔斯泰，我想，托尔斯泰将如何融入其中？
Richard Gunderman: Well, I think Tolstoy is very aware of the fact that every human being is part of a larger whole--with a 'w'.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我认为托尔斯泰非常清楚这样一个事实：每个人都是一个更大整体的一部分——带有“w”。
That, every one of us is born into the world totally helpless, entirely dependent on the care of others.
也就是说，我们每个人一出生到这个世界上都是完全无助的，完全依赖别人的照顾。
And, while over time we acquire more independence or self-sufficiency, we are in fact throughout our lives dependent on others.
而且，虽然随着时间的推移，我们获得了更多的独立或自给自足，但事实上我们一生都依赖他人。
I think for Tolstoy, particularly the family--it's hard to lead a complete full, rich, human life unless you're part of a family and unless that family is to some degree thriving.
我认为对于托尔斯泰来说，尤其是对于家庭来说，除非你是一个家庭的一部分，并且除非这个家庭在某种程度上蓬勃发展，否则你很难过上完整、丰富、人性化的生活。
I mean, who would think of cheating their child, stealing from their mother?
我的意思是，谁会想到欺骗他们的孩子，从他们的母亲那里偷东西呢？
I mean, wow--from a narrow, I don't know, economic point of view, that might seem like a good idea.
我的意思是，哇——从狭隘的、我不知道的经济角度来看，这似乎是个好主意。
You know, 'I left mom's house with an extra thousand dollars.' But anyway, anybody who could even think in those terms is, as you said, Russ, lost.
你知道，“我离开妈妈家时多带了一千美元。”但无论如何，正如你所说，拉斯，任何能够从这些角度思考的人都失败了。
I mean, they're on the fast track to perdition.
我的意思是，他们正走在灭亡的快车道上。
We should think of our mothers, and our children, our spouses, and so forth as ourselves , or that we and they are part of something larger than each of us.
我们应该把我们的母亲、我们的孩子、我们的配偶等等视为我们自己，或者我们和他们都是比我们每个人更大的事物的一部分。
And, it's only by protecting and promoting what's good for that larger whole that we can really thrive, ourselves, and in a way even be ourselves.
而且，只有通过保护和促进对更大整体有利的事物，我们才能真正繁荣发展，甚至在某种程度上成为我们自己。
If you take me apart from my family, put me in a strange city or in solitary confinement in a prison, I assume, over time, I might dissolve as a person, at least the person I am.
如果你把我与家人分开，把我放在一个陌生的城市或单独监禁在监狱里，我想，随着时间的推移，我可能会消失作为一个人，至少是我这个人。
Now, hopefully, I'd be able to make friends in a strange city.
现在，希望我能够在陌生的城市结交朋友。
But, in solitary confinement, it might become impossible to be human.
但是，在单独监禁中，人可能变得不可能。
Russ Roberts: Well, you might have.
拉斯·罗伯茨：嗯，你可能有。
If you have an iPhone and good Wi-Fi, you might be okay.
如果您有 iPhone 和良好的 Wi-Fi，可能没问题。
But, that really is the right question when you think about it.
但是，仔细想想，这确实是一个正确的问题。
We've put ourselves into a little bit of solitary confinement over the last decade or so with our focus on our phones.
在过去十年左右的时间里，我们把自己置于一点单独的监禁之中，因为我们的注意力都集中在手机上。
Russ Roberts: But, I want to try to challenge your view, and my view as well.
拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，我想尝试挑战你的观点，以及我的观点。
A footnote on the side is that Tolstoy was a religious man.
旁边的脚注是托尔斯泰是一位宗教人士。
There is a Divine element of this story.
这个故事有一个神圣的元素。
In a way, it's very, very small.
在某种程度上，它非常非常小。
It's only introduced on maybe a couple of pages.
它只在几页上进行了介绍。
In another way, it's the whole story.
从另一个角度来说，这就是整个故事。
So, it's an interesting fictional element of the story is the role that the Divine plays and how it speaks to people and keeps them focused on things other than themselves.
所以，故事中一个有趣的虚构元素是神所扮演的角色，以及它如何与人们交谈并使他们专注于自己以外的事情。
But, I want to put, I want to put that to the side.
但是，我想把它放在一边。
I want to challenge my view.
我想挑战我的观点。
I want to come back to what I asked you before.
我想回到我之前问过你的问题。
So, he only cares about himself, he only cares about making a deal, why is that--?
那么，他只关心自己，只关心做交易，为什么——？
Hobbes says, according to you in your essay, which we'll also link to for listeners.
霍布斯说，根据您在文章中的说法，我们还将为听众提供链接。
Hobbes said, 'It's rational to look after yourself.' He didn't think about evolution, but you could argue it's evolutionarily fit.
霍布斯说：“照顾好自己是理性的。”他没有考虑进化论，但你可以说它在进化上是合适的。
Ayn Rand certainly stressed that; you mentioned that in passing in your essay.
艾因·兰德（Ayn Rand）当然强调了这一点；你在论文中顺便提到了这一点。
What's wrong with that?
这有什么问题吗？
I mean, so what?
我的意思是，那又怎么样？
So, he sees himself as not connected to other people.
因此，他认为自己与其他人没有联系。
So, he puts himself first.
所以，他把自己放在第一位。
That's what everybody should do, the argument might go.
这是每个人都应该做的，争论可能会继续下去。
And then, through the invisible hand--that's a misunderstanding of Smith, but I'm trying to be fair to the other side--we'll say it's Mandeville in The Fable of the Bees .
然后，通过看不见的手——这是对史密斯的误解，但我试图公平地对待另一方——我们会说这是《蜜蜂寓言》中的曼德维尔。
Some people are trying to make money.
有些人正在努力赚钱。
They'll build businesses, and they'll in fact, yeah, I'll just say it that way.
他们会建立企业，事实上，他们会，是的，我只是这么说。
So, why is that--what's wrong with that?
那么，为什么会这样——有什么问题吗？
Richard Gunderman: Well, in part, I think, it's the diminishment of the selfish or egoistic or greedy person.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我认为，部分原因是自私、自私或贪婪的人的减少。
They are so curved in on themselves that they can't really see and feel for other human beings.
他们太专注于自己，以至于无法真正看到和感受到其他人。
So, if they were in relationship with other human beings, bound together with them, doing their best to help at least some other people lead better lives, I think they would both find a great deal more fulfillment in their lives and also become a better version of themselves.
因此，如果他们与其他人建立关系，与他们联系在一起，尽最大努力帮助至少其他一些人过上更好的生活，我认为他们都会在生活中找到更多的满足，也会成为更好的自己。
I mean, one thing we could say is: Leo Tolstoy was rich.
我的意思是，我们可以说的一件事是：列夫·托尔斯泰很富有。
That's a true fact.
这是千真万确的事实。
Okay, let's move on to Dostoevsky.
好吧，让我们继续讲陀思妥耶夫斯基。
You know?
你知道？
No. Learning that Leo Tolstoy was rich has told you next to nothing about Leo Tolstoy.
不。得知列夫·托尔斯泰很富有，你对列夫·托尔斯泰几乎一无所知。
It's missed everything we really need to know about Leo Tolstoy.
它错过了我们真正需要了解的关于列夫·托尔斯泰的一切。
And, while that's especially true for Tolstoy, it may be very true of every single human being.
而且，虽然这对托尔斯泰来说尤其如此，但对每个人来说可能都是如此。
Simply knowing somebody's net worth has told us next to nothing about who they are, what larger wholes they're a part of, what difference they're making every day, and what legacy they're going to leave.
仅仅了解某人的净资产几乎无法告诉我们他们是谁、他们属于哪个更大的整体、他们每天都在创造什么变化以及他们将留下什么遗产。
Russ Roberts: But, the economist might argue--and certainly, I know many who do argue this way--'You know, you're just a paternalist, Richard.' Here's this man, Vasili.
拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，经济学家可能会争论——当然，我知道很多人确实这样争论——“你知道，你只是一个家长式统治者，理查德。”这就是这个人，瓦西里。
He's happy as a clam.
他高兴得像蛤蜊一样。
He's got a lot of money.
他有很多钱。
True, his wife is unloved.
确实，他的妻子不被爱。
True, he sees his son as an object--the person who is going to be his, the caretaker of his assets when he dies.
确实，他把他的儿子视为一个物品——他将成为他的人，他死后资产的看护人。
But, he's happy.
但是，他很高兴。
Thinks a lot of himself.
自己想得很多。
You're suggesting you know better about what's good for him.
你建议你更好地了解什么对他有好处。
And, certainly, Tolstoy is doing that.
当然，托尔斯泰正在这样做。
He's happy to do it.
他很乐意这样做。
But, wasn't Hobbes onto something?
但是，霍布斯不是有什么发现吗？
Wasn't--what's the big deal?
不是——有什么大不了的？
So, you think he's missing out.
所以，你认为他错过了。
He doesn't.
他不知道。
He's got those choices.
他有这些选择。
He's chosen to ignore them and to get pleasure from what floats his boat.
他选择忽略它们，并从船上漂浮的东西中获得乐趣。
And, what floats his boat is daydreaming about how much money he's got.
而且，让他的船漂浮的就是他有多少钱的白日梦。
In the modern world, he'd be looking over his stock holdings in the Wall Street Journal every day, and he'd be counting his money.
在现代世界，他每天都会在《华尔街日报》上查看自己持有的股票，并数着自己的钱。
You know--big deal.
你知道——有什么大不了的。
Richard Gunderman: Well, I certainly am not suggesting we slap handcuffs on Vasili and torture him until he adopts a different point of view.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我当然不是建议我们给瓦西里戴上手铐并折磨他，直到他采取不同的观点。
But, I think sensitive readers can feel very sorry for him.
但是，我想敏感的读者会对他感到非常遗憾。
He thinks that his greatness and invulnerability lies in his deal-making and his wealth.
他认为他的伟大和刀枪不入在于他的交易和他的财富。
But in fact, it's caused him to neglect other facets of his life that are equally or even more important.
但事实上，这导致他忽视了生活中同等甚至更重要的其他方面。
I don't despise Vasili, but I feel very sorry for him; and I harbor a deep hope that he will find a way out of that rat's nest of greed in which he is enmeshed.
我并不鄙视瓦西里，但我为他感到非常遗憾；我深深地希望他能找到一条出路，摆脱他所陷入的贪婪的鼠窝。
And, I think a lot of readers can feel the same way.
而且，我想很多读者都有同样的感觉。
Tolstoy is really, in the person of Vasili, inviting us to hold up a mirror to our own lives.
托尔斯泰确实以瓦西里的身份邀请我们举起一面镜子来审视自己的生活。
Vasili's sole concern, Tolstoy tells us, is how much money he's made and how much money he might still make.
托尔斯泰告诉我们，瓦西里唯一关心的是他赚了多少钱以及他还能赚多少钱。
That is his sole concern.
这是他唯一关心的问题。
What is your sole concern?
您唯一关心的是什么？
What is my sole concern?
我唯一关心的是什么？
What are the sole concerns of our families and neighbors and fellow citizens?
我们的家人、邻居和同胞唯一关心的是什么？
If it's just how much money we've made and how much money we might still make, no matter how rich we are, we are leading deeply impoverished human lives.
如果只是考虑我们已经赚了多少钱以及我们还能赚多少钱，那么无论我们多么富有，我们的生活都是极度贫困的。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
I have to say--obviously, I don't disagree with that.
我不得不说——显然，我不同意这一点。
I mainly agree with it.
我主要同意这一点。
I do think it's interesting if we think about evidence for that view.
我确实认为，如果我们考虑一下支持这一观点的证据，就会很有趣。
And, I want to--we'll come to Smith next.
而且，我想——我们接下来会谈到史密斯。
And if I forget, you'll remind me, I hope, because Smith has a lot to say about this as well.
如果我忘记了，我希望你会提醒我，因为史密斯对此也有很多话要说。
It is interesting--I've never thought about it--but it is interesting that most great works of art on this topic are about a character who realizes that there's more to life than money.
这很有趣——我从来没有想过——但有趣的是，关于这个主题的大多数伟大的艺术作品都是关于一个意识到生活比金钱更重要的人物。
Usually, it doesn't go the other way.
通常，它不会走相反的路。
Usually, I can't think of a work of art--I can't think of a great movie, a great novel, a great short story--where a character has been really good to the people around him or her, and then one day, he wakes up and realizes he should just forget about him and focus on making money.
通常，我想不出一件艺术作品——我想不出一部伟大的电影、一部伟大的小说、一个伟大的短篇故事——其中一个角色对他或她周围的人非常好，然后有一天，他醒来，意识到他应该忘记他，专注于赚钱。
Now--and you could add to that, the wisdom of religions and other sage advice that emphasize that there's more to life than money.
现在，你还可以补充一下宗教的智慧和其他圣人的建议，这些建议强调生活比金钱更重要。
One of my favorite versions of this is no one on their deathbed wished they'd spent more time at the office.
我最喜欢的版本之一是，临终时没有人希望自己在办公室花更多时间。
And, the motto of life isn't the person who has the most toys wins.
而且，生活的座右铭并不是拥有最多玩具的人获胜。
So, it's pretty clear that culturally , there are forces trying to push us--Ebenezer Scrooge should be another example--there were forces trying to push us away from Vasili.
所以，很明显，在文化上，有一些力量试图推动我们——埃比尼泽·斯克鲁奇应该是另一个例子——有一些力量试图把我们推离瓦西里。
That: he is to be judged.
那：他将受到审判。
His mistakes are to be avoided.
他的错误是应该避免的。
And, yet, I have to admit a little piece of me has some--well, it's not true.
然而，我不得不承认我的一部分有一些——嗯，这不是真的。
I'm trying to be even-handed.
我正在努力做到一视同仁。
I can't be.
我不可能。
I think Tolstoy wants us to feel sorry for him, to see him as a pathetic person, especially the gap between his own self-image and our view of the man.
我认为托尔斯泰希望我们为他感到难过，把他视为一个可悲的人，尤其是他的自我形象与我们对这个人的看法之间的差距。
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
I agree completely.
我完全同意。
There's something very sad, constricted, narrow, superficial about the life he's leading; and he clearly has the potential to be a better husband, to be a better father, to take into account to a greater degree the interests of people who work for him and the people with whom he's striking deals.
他的生活有些悲伤、压抑、狭隘、肤浅。他显然有潜力成为一个更好的丈夫，一个更好的父亲，更大程度地考虑为他工作的人和与他达成协议的人的利益。
But, he's got this weird, distorted conception of human life in which it's all about him and how much he has; and that takes a great toll on the other people in his life.
但是，他对人类生活有一种奇怪的、扭曲的观念，其中一切都是关于他和他拥有多少；这对他生活中的其他人造成了很大的损失。
He's actually damaging other people through his inability to see other people--to feel what's important to them and to see how he might enrich their lives rather than basically grasping and hoarding as much as he possibly can.
他实际上是在伤害别人，因为他无法看到其他人，无法感受到对他们来说重要的事情，也无法看到他如何丰富他们的生活，而不是基本上尽可能地抓住和囤积。
Russ Roberts: So, earlier I made fun of the economists' view--a little bit and I try to be fair to it more or less--but the standard mainstream economist view is--it's captured in the phrase, 'consumer sovereignty.' People choose--whatever they do is what they prefer.
拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，早些时候我取笑了经济学家的观点——有一点，我试图或多或少地公平——但标准的主流经济学家观点是——它体现在“消费者主权”这个短语中。人们选择——无论他们做什么，都是他们喜欢的。
And so, in a way we have no right to judge Vasili.
因此，在某种程度上我们无权评判瓦西里。
And to do so is to be paternalistic, to impose our preference function on his.
这样做就是家长作风，将我们的偏好功能强加于他的之上。
And, yet, I think the key to thinking about this in an economist's way is to recognize the possibility of self-deception.
然而，我认为以经济学家的方式思考这个问题的关键是认识到自欺欺人的可能性。
Certainly Smith understood that.
史密斯当然明白这一点。
Let's turn to him now.
现在让我们转向他。
Smith--listeners know my favorite Smith quote, "Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely." And, Smith, by 'loved' and 'lovely' didn't mean just romantic love and physical appearance and lovely.
史密斯——听众都知道我最喜欢的史密斯名言：“人自然地不仅渴望被爱，而且渴望变得可爱。”而且，史密斯，“被爱”和“可爱”并不仅仅意味着浪漫的爱情、外表和可爱。
Smith meant praised--by 'loved': praised, admired, being significant, being respected.
史密斯的意思是赞扬——“爱”：赞扬、钦佩、重要、受到尊重。
And 'lovely' meant being worthy of praise, worthy of respect, worthy of admiration.
而‘可爱’意味着值得赞扬、值得尊重、值得钦佩。
[Time mark 37:36] And, he has this incredible passage where he says: If you want to be loved, you want people to pay attention to you.
[时间标记 37:36] 而且，他有一段令人难以置信的段落，他说：如果你想被爱，你希望人们关注你。
One way to do that is to be rich, powerful, and famous.
做到这一点的方法之一就是变得富有、强大和出名。
And, the other way is to be wise and virtuous.
另外，另一个方法是明智和有道德。
[See Part I, Section III, paragraph 29 (Chap.
[见第一部分第三节第 29 段（第一章）
III) , of The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith: "We desire both to be respectable and to be respected....
III) 亚当·斯密的《道德情操论》：“我们既希望受到尊重，又希望被尊重……
The great mob of mankind are the admirers and worshippers, and, what may seem more extraordinary, most frequently the disinterested admirers and worshippers, of wealth and greatness."--Econlib Ed.]
人类的一大群乌合之众是财富和伟大的崇拜者和崇拜者，而且，看起来更不寻常的是，最常见的是财富和伟大的无私的崇拜者和崇拜者。”——Econlib Ed.]
And he says: There's two paths presented to us.
他说：我们面前有两条路。
And he calls that first path--the rich, powerful, famous path--the "glittering" path.
他称第一条道路——富有、强大、著名的道路——“闪闪发光”的道路。
And, he says: If you follow that glittering path, the "great mob" of humanity will be interested in you.
而且，他说：如果你遵循那条闪闪发光的道路，人类的“伟大暴民”就会对你感兴趣。
Which is very fun.
这非常有趣。
Right?
正确的？
It's fun when people think you're important, pay attention to your every word, want to know how you dress, and want to copy you.
当人们认为你很重要、关注你的每一句话、想知道你的穿着、想模仿你时，这很有趣。
He says: That other path, the wise and virtuous path, it's not so shiny.
他说：另一条道路，智慧和道德的道路，它并不那么闪亮。
And, he calls it, I think, a "small party" of people who will appreciate you.
而且，我认为他称之为一个由欣赏你的人组成的“小聚会”。
So, what he's saying there is actually--I think it's true.
所以，他所说的实际上是——我认为这是真的。
But, it's quite profound because what he's saying is that there's a seductive nature to that first path of riches, power, and fame.
但是，这是相当深刻的，因为他所说的是，通往财富、权力和名誉的第一条道路具有诱人的本质。
And, it's easy to get seduced.
而且，很容易被诱惑。
It's easy to be blinded by that brightness.
很容易被这种亮度弄瞎。
And, I think that is the essence of the cultural view on these issues: is that, it's not that, 'Oh, you feel differently about this than I do.' It's that, 'You don't see the full picture.
而且，我认为这就是对这些问题的文化观点的本质：不是，“哦，你对此的感受与我不同。”这就是，‘你看不到完整的画面。
You don't realize there's this other path.
你没有意识到还有另一条路。
You don't realize that you're being seduced.
你没有意识到你正在被诱惑。
And, you end up on your deathbed wishing you spent less time at the office, and you'll regret it.' So, 'Hey!
而且，你最终在临终前希望自己少花点时间在办公室，你会后悔的。”所以，‘嘿！
Hey!
嘿！
Stop!
停止！
Stop going in circles.
别再兜圈子了。
Stay in the town, get warm.' Anyway, sorry, I'm rambling there.
留在城里，取暖。无论如何，对不起，我在那里闲逛。
Carry on.
继续。
Richard Gunderman: Well, one way to look at it is: we're born with certain desires.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，一种看待它的方式是：我们生来就有某些欲望。
And, you could say infants are selfish, in a way.
而且，你可以说婴儿在某种程度上是自私的。
They get hungry.
他们饿了。
They cry.
他们哭了。
They're not reaching out to other people to help them satisfy their needs and desires.
他们不会向其他人伸出援手来帮助他们满足自己的需求和愿望。
So, maybe, we are born somewhat selfish or egotistical, and egoistical: maybe that makes sense.
所以，也许我们生来就有些自私或自私，而且自私：也许这是有道理的。
But, the question is: Are we meant to go through our entire lives as human beings, family members, neighbors, and citizens operating with the lower desires we were born with?
但是，问题是：作为人类、家庭成员、邻居和公民，我们是否注定要带着与生俱来的较低欲望来度过我们的一生？
Or, do we have the potential to educate our desires, to seek and find fulfillment in higher things, say human relationships, even things like literature, art, music?
或者，我们是否有潜力培养我们的欲望，在更高的事物中寻求并找到满足，比如人际关系，甚至文学、艺术、音乐等事物？
Maybe we aren't born with that, but maybe we can develop it.
也许我们并非生来如此，但也许我们可以培养它。
And, for somebody who does develop it fully--and I think, toward the end of the story, Vasili has a chance to develop that more fully--that turns out to be the much more fulfilling path in life.
而且，对于那些真正充分发展它的人来说——我认为，在故事的结尾，瓦西里有机会更充分地发展它——事实证明这是一条更加充实的人生道路。
And, more importantly, maybe doing the will of the Divine.
而且，更重要的是，也许遵行神的旨意。
Maybe that's what we're meant for.
也许这就是我们的目的。
Maybe that's what we're told we've been meant for; and it's a terrible thing when the development of those desires from lower to higher is interrupted and somebody ends up going through life with a relatively primitive or base sense of desire and nothing more.
也许这就是我们被告知的目的；当这些欲望从低级到高级的发展被中断，而某人最终以相对原始或基本的欲望感度过一生，仅此而已时，这是一件可怕的事情。
Russ Roberts: And well, Tolstoy certainly thought of the Divine--again, as I mentioned before, the divine aspect of this.
拉斯·罗伯茨：好吧，托尔斯泰当然想到了神圣——正如我之前提到的，它的神圣方面。
But I don't think--you don't have to be a religious person to appreciate it.
但我不认为——你不必是一个宗教人士才能欣赏它。
Russ Roberts: I think the--I'll come back to this quote, I use it in my new book-- Wild Problems is my new book.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我想——我会回到这句话，我在我的新书中使用了它——《狂野问题》是我的新书。
And, in there I quote this line from John Stuart Mill: "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."
而且，我在那里引用了约翰·斯图尔特·密尔的这句话：“做一个不满足的人比做一头满足的猪更好。”
And, I didn't write about this part of it, but one of the parts, aspects of that is that: there's a lot of us that, of our humanity, that's a lot like a pig.
而且，我没有写这一部分，但其中一个部分、一个方面是：我们很多人，我们的人性，很像一头猪。
We like wallowing in mud.
我们喜欢在泥巴里打滚。
We call it something different.
我们称之为不同的东西。
Right?
正确的？
We like when they put out the food for us, like the farmer does; and we like rubbing our back on a tree when it's itching.
我们喜欢他们像农民一样为我们提供食物；当树痒的时候，我们喜欢在树上蹭背。
And, there's a lot of human experience that's like in animals.
而且，人类有很多与动物相似的经历。
And, I have a deep attraction, Richard, which I confess to, to the parts of my existence that are less like in animals.
而且，理查德，我承认，我对自己存在中不像动物的部分有一种深深的吸引力。
And, I don't know whether that's hardwired into me--the desire for, say, the transcendent or the creatively human, the art that you were talking about.
而且，我不知道这是否是我与生俱来的——对超越的或创造性的人类的渴望，你所说的艺术。
I do feel virtuous--beside the divine aspect, the religious aspect--when I exercise faculties that I suspect animals can't.
当我运用我怀疑动物无法做到的能力时，我确实感到自己是有道德的——除了神圣的方面，宗教的方面。
And, I don't know how important that is.
而且，我不知道这有多重要。
I don't know.
我不知道。
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
A great example of that would be: any of us could think about one of the best meals we've ever enjoyed.
一个很好的例子是：我们任何人都可以想象我们吃过的最好的一餐。
Possibility Number One: the best meal I ever had was defined by the food that was on the plate and how much of it I ingested.
可能性一：我吃过的最好的一餐是由盘子里的食物和我摄入的量来定义的。
That could be.
可能是这样。
Maybe eating is just about ingesting nutrients and surviving to another day.
也许吃饭只是为了摄取营养并存活到新的一天。
But, I think you and I would say when we think about the best meal we've ever had, it wasn't defined by the food on the plate.
但是，我想你和我会说，当我们想到我们吃过的最好的一餐时，它并不是由盘子里的食物来定义的。
It was defined by the other people we were sharing the meal with.
它是由与我们一起用餐的其他人定义的。
Table fellowship, conversation.
餐桌上的团契，交谈。
I learned something.
我学到了一些东西。
I made a new friend, or I deepened a friendship, or the relationship with my wife or my children or my parents, or what have you.
我交了一个新朋友，或者加深了友谊，或者与我的妻子、我的孩子、我的父母的关系，或者你有什么。
That, I would say is a higher conception of the role of sharing meals in our lives than just that we're ingesting nutrients.
我想说，这是对分享膳食在我们生活中的作用的更高概念，而不仅仅是我们摄取营养。
So, sure.
所以，当然。
We need to feed our kids at the breast or the bottle when they're first born.
当我们的孩子刚出生时，我们需要用母乳或奶瓶喂养他们。
But over time, we want them to learn at the family dinner table that there's a lot more to living than just staying alive.
但随着时间的推移，我们希望他们在家庭餐桌上了解到，生活不仅仅只是为了生存。
And in fact, some of life's deepest pleasures and fulfillments lie in the kind of conversation that tends to happen at the dinner table.
事实上，生活中一些最深的快乐和满足就在于餐桌上的谈话。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
I'm a big fan of the book by Leon Kass, The Hungry Soul , which deals with a lot of these issues that I also reference.
我是莱昂·卡斯（Leon Kass）所著的《饥饿的灵魂》一书的忠实粉丝，该书讨论了我也参考过的许多此类问题。
I think it's in Virginia Woolf's novel, To The Lighthouse --is that the name of the book?
我想这是弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的小说《到灯塔去》——这就是书名吗？
Is it To The Lighthouse?
是到灯塔去吗？
I think it's To The Lighthouse --
我认为是《到灯塔去》——
Russ Roberts: There's a dinner party, if I remember correctly in there that--I still enjoy that meal.
拉斯·罗伯茨：有一个晚宴，如果我没记错的话——我仍然很喜欢那顿饭。
I got no nutrients from reading about it, but there's a feeling of the kind of comraderie and love and affection.
读起来没有任何营养，但是有一种同志情谊、爱和亲情的感觉。
And, the special thing that people produce together when they interact together conversationally and through emotion and through facial expressions where food is the medium, but it's not the main event.
而且，当人们通过对话、情感和面部表情互动时，共同产生的特殊事物，其中食物是媒介，但它不是主要事件。
And, it's a great way to think of it.
而且，这是一个很好的思考方式。
Richard Gunderman: I would say commensalism, which basically means eating together.
理查德·冈德曼：我想说的是共食主义，这基本上意味着一起吃饭。
Sharing a table is not only on the decline, but rapidly declining in our own age.
共享餐桌不仅在减少，而且在我们这个时代正在迅速减少。
We, Americans, at least take far fewer meals together than we used to.
我们美国人至少比以前少得多了。
A very high percentage of meals in the United States are consumed in isolation.
在美国，很大比例的膳食是单独食用的。
And this has become trite, but you often see people gathered at a table, but every one of them staring down at their cell phone.
这已经变得老生常谈了，但你经常看到人们聚集在一张桌子旁，但每个人都低头盯着手机。
Nobody is in conversation with each other.
没有人在互相交谈。
So, if a person really wanted to do something about this, I think one thing to do would be to foster commensalism.
所以，如果一个人真的想为此做点什么，我认为要做的一件事就是培养共生主义。
How can we awaken ourselves, our family, our friends, our colleagues to the joys that come from eating together?
我们怎样才能唤醒我们自己、我们的家人、我们的朋友、我们的同事一起吃饭带来的快乐？
We need to make time and space to actually sit down at a table, share a meal, and engage in a conversation.
我们需要腾出时间和空间，真正坐在餐桌旁，共享一顿饭，并进行对话。
We can write principles on a blackboard, mouth platitudes, but we actually need to make a practice in our lives to develop that habit.
我们可以把原则写在黑板上，嘴里挂着陈词滥调，但实际上我们需要在生活中实践来养成这种习惯。
And, I think anybody who works to develop that habit is probably doing a great deal of good in their family and in their community just by being an exemplar and an advocate for the importance of commensalism.
而且，我认为任何努力养成这种习惯的人都可能通过成为共栖主义重要性的典范和倡导者，为他们的家庭和社区做出很多好事。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
I've never heard that word before.
我以前从未听说过这个词。
Commensalism?
共栖主义？
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
'Co-' means together, of course and 'mensa' literally means table, but the idea is we're sharing a table.
当然，“Co-”的意思是“一起”，“mensa”字面意思是桌子，但我们的意思是我们共享一张桌子。
Russ Roberts: Yeah, that's lovely.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，那很可爱。
I confess, though, that in the last 10 years, I've become very enamored of eating lunch by myself and scrolling through Twitter, catching up with websites that I like.
不过，我承认，在过去的 10 年里，我非常喜欢自己吃午饭，浏览 Twitter，浏览我喜欢的网站。
Maybe reading--reading a book in theory on a bookstand or on my Kindle.
也许是阅读——在书架上或我的 Kindle 上理论上阅读一本书。
And, it's interesting, again, of how seductive that is.
而且，有趣的是，这又是多么诱人。
And, to invest in that alternative--which doesn't always pay off: sometimes you meet, you have a lunch with somebody, and it's boring.
而且，投资于这种替代方案 - 这并不总是有回报：有时你会见，与某人共进午餐，这很无聊。
Or, they talk the whole time and it's just not so fun.
或者，他们一直在说话，但这并不那么有趣。
But, the art of a good table conversation--or any kind of conversation actually, as opposed to being alone--is definitely on the decline.
但是，良好的餐桌交谈的艺术——或者实际上任何类型的交谈，而不是独处——肯定正在衰落。
It's--
这是——
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
I'm glad, Russ, to hear you use the word 'art.' It might really be an art.
拉斯，我很高兴听到你使用“艺术”这个词。这可能真的是一门艺术。
If you want to become a good painter, you've got to work at it for a long time.
如果你想成为一名优秀的画家，你就必须长期努力。
You want to become a good musician, it takes real effort over a sustained period.
你想成为一名优秀的音乐家，需要持续一段时间的真正努力。
Maybe it takes real effort to cultivate the art of table fellowship and table conversation.
也许需要真正的努力来培养餐桌友谊和餐桌谈话的艺术。
And, if we don't invest in cultivating it, it's going to lie fallow.
而且，如果我们不投资培育它，它就会休耕。
You know?
你知道？
It's going to deteriorate over time; and I'm afraid that's what a lot of us are doing.
随着时间的推移，它会恶化；恐怕这就是我们很多人正在做的事情。
Russ Roberts: And, it's a different art to host versus to be a guest.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，主持与做客是不同的艺术。
It's a different experience.
这是一种不同的体验。
You have a different set of obligations in those two settings.
在这两种情况下，您有不同的义务。
A lot of times we neglect that, I think, and focus too much on what we want and what we think we need.
我认为，很多时候我们都忽视了这一点，并且过于关注我们想要的和我们认为我们需要的。
And, it's a really lovely point.
而且，这是一个非常可爱的观点。
I want to read a quote--
我想读一段引言——
Richard Gunderman: I'm sure, Russ, Vasili is seated by himself, looking at 'What's the Dow [Dow Jones Industrial Average] doing today?
理查德·冈德曼：我确信，拉斯，瓦西里独自坐在座位上，看着“道琼斯工业平均指数今天表现如何？”
What's the Ukrainian situation doing to my personal net worth?' That guy is not involved in table conversation.
乌克兰局势对我的个人净资产有何影响？那家伙不参与餐桌谈话。
He's plotting the next deal, how he's going to take advantage of the next naive person who crosses his path.
他正在策划下一笔交易，以及如何利用下一个遇到他的天真的人。
Russ Roberts: Yeah.
拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。
I think of him--and I see myself like this sometimes and, when I'm eating alone--is: he's got his nose in the feedbag or his snout in the trough.
我想起他——有时我会看到自己像这样，当我独自吃饭时——是：他的鼻子伸进了饲料袋，或者他的鼻子伸进了食槽。
So, he kind of focused on the physical pleasure of chewing and eating and consuming.
所以，他有点专注于咀嚼、进食和消费的身体愉悦。
Which is part of our makeup.
这是我们化妆的一部分。
So, it's up to us if we want to try to transcend that.
因此，我们是否想尝试超越这一点取决于我们。
It's hard to do.
这很难做到。
I've talked about being on silent meditation retreat, where you're supposed to eat thoughtfully and chew thoughtfully.
我已经谈到过静修静修，在那里你应该深思熟虑地吃饭和咀嚼。
Notice what the food is, notice what it smells like, notice its texture on your tongue and in your mouth.
注意食物是什么，注意它的味道，注意它在舌头上和嘴里的质地。
And, when you do that, when I've done that a few times on retreat, it's an extraordinarily sensuous and intellectually-, emotionally-exhilarating experience.
而且，当你这样做时，当我在禅修中这样做过几次时，这是一种异常感性、智力和情感上令人兴奋的体验。
And, when you come back from a retreat, you think, 'I'm going to eat that way at lunch every day.' And, I don't.
而且，当你从静修中回来时，你会想，“我每天午餐都会这样吃。”而且，我不。
It's hard to do.
这很难做到。
The other stuff is the website and the other distractions are distracting, but to eat without distraction--and without conversation in this case--it's not what you're talking about.
其他的东西是网站，其他的干扰因素都是分散注意力的，但是不分心地吃饭——在这种情况下没有谈话——这不是你所说的。
It's a different aspect of--of the physical.
这是身体的不同方面。
It's really an amazing experience.
这真是一次奇妙的经历。
I recommend it.
我推荐它。
You can read about it anywhere on the web, I'm sure: eating mindfully.
我确信你可以在网络上的任何地方读到相关内容：用心饮食。
It's unbelievably fabulous.
这真是难以置信的美妙。
But it's really hard to do.
但这确实很难做到。
Richard Gunderman: Right.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
My waistline might belie this, but I'm going to make this declaration anyway: I would rather skip a meal and have a great conversation than feed my face.
我的腰围可能与此不符，但无论如何我都会做出这样的声明：我宁愿不吃一顿饭，进行一次愉快的交谈，也不愿吃饱脸。
So, I need to be a more mindful eater, no doubt about it.
所以，毫无疑问，我需要成为一个更加用心的饮食者。
But, I ultimately would like to be the kind of person who would sacrifice a meal for the sake of a good conversation.
但是，我最终希望成为那种为了愉快的谈话而牺牲一顿饭的人。
And I say again, when I think of the best dining experiences I've ever had, I'm not sure I even remember what was on the menu in some cases, but I sure remember the conversation that took place at that dinner table.
我再说一遍，当我想到我曾经拥有过的最好的用餐体验时，我什至不确定在某些情况下我是否还记得菜单上的内容，但我确实记得在那张餐桌上发生的谈话。
Russ Roberts: Well, you're clearly not a member of my family, Richard.
拉斯·罗伯茨：嗯，你显然不是我的家庭成员，理查德。
My family members--my direct family, my children, my wife--they could tell you the menu from years ago.
我的家人——我的直系亲属、我的孩子、我的妻子——他们可以告诉你多年前的菜单。
They'll say, 'You know what that dinner we had with so and so?
他们会说，‘你知道我们和某某人一起吃的晚餐是什么吗？
I think we had--' So, I think you may be a little unusual, or maybe my kids are.
我认为我们——”所以，我认为你可能有点不寻常，或者也许我的孩子们是。
Russ Roberts: But anyway, I want to read a quote from your essay which I really like, and we'll talk about it.
拉斯·罗伯茨：但无论如何，我想读一下你文章中我非常喜欢的一段话，我们会讨论一下。
Now, I'm not sure Smith and Hobbes are that different there, but that's not so important.
现在，我不确定史密斯和霍布斯有那么不同，但这并不那么重要。
I really want to--it's interesting--but I want to focus on the first part: This idea of attending.
我真的很想——这很有趣——但我想把重点放在第一部分：参与的想法。
The idea of paying attention.
关注的想法。
We mentioned it in passing earlier.
我们之前顺便提到过这一点。
Expand on that.
就此展开。
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
I think--you know, the world is presented to us, I think, as an invitation.
我想——你知道，这个世界是作为一个邀请而呈现给我们的。
What do we notice?
我们注意到什么？
What catches our attention?
什么引起了我们的注意？
What do we dwell on?
我们关注什么？
And, if we become captured by little things, trivial things, superficial things, that's going to impede our ability to pay attention to the things that matter more deeply.
而且，如果我们被小事、琐碎的事情、肤浅的事情所困扰，就会妨碍我们更深入地关注重要事情的能力。
And, in that sense, attention may to be at the very heart of the moral life.
从这个意义上说，注意力可能是道德生活的核心。
You know, my wife, or one of my children, or a friend is trying to tell me something that means a lot to them, but I'm glancing at my cell phone.
你知道，我的妻子、我的一个孩子或一位朋友正试图告诉我一些对他们来说意义重大的事情，但我正在看我的手机。
You know?
你知道？
Or thinking about a talk I need to give later in the day, or something like that.
或者考虑当天晚些时候我需要做的演讲，或者类似的事情。
I am not fully present.
我没有完全在场。
I am not fully attending to what they're saying.
我没有完全注意他们在说什么。
And, by the way, they know it.
顺便说一句，他们知道这一点。
My family is very good at calling me out on that.
我的家人很擅长在这件事上批评我。
And I suspect other people's families are as well.
我怀疑其他人的家人也是如此。
So, that's actually a blessing , to have somebody call you out on it.
所以，有人叫你出来，这实际上是一件幸事。
'Are you really listening to me?
‘你真的有在听我说话吗？
Are you here or are you thinking about something else?' But, if we can really attend to what most merits our attention, I think it opens the possibility of really becoming better people and leading better lives.
你在这儿还是在想别的事？但是，如果我们能够真正关注最值得我们关注的事情，我认为这开启了真正成为更好的人并过上更好的生活的可能性。
On the other hand, if we neglect the things that matter most, the moral principles we follow aren't going to amount too much in the end.
另一方面，如果我们忽视了最重要的事情，那么我们所遵循的道德原则最终就不会发挥太大作用。
So, this business of attending really matters.
所以，参加这件事真的很重要。
I'm in a profession--medicine--you know, we talked about the head of the medical team as the attending --the attending physician on the Gastroenterology service, or something like that.
我从事的职业是医学，你知道，我们谈到医疗团队的负责人是胃肠病学服务的主治医生，或者类似的东西。
I don't think that's an accident, that that person is called the attending .
我不认为这是偶然的，那个人被称为主治。
Maybe they are the people who by virtue of their training and greater experience are supposed to see more clearly than anybody else what really needs to be attended to here.
也许他们凭借自己的训练和丰富的经验应该比其他人更清楚地看到这里真正需要注意的事情。
And, I think that's true not only in medicine, but in life.
而且，我认为这不仅在医学上如此，在生活中也是如此。
Russ Roberts: I think it's a really deep point.
拉斯·罗伯茨：我认为这是一个非常深刻的观点。
I'm going to try to say it a slightly different way, I think.
我想我会尝试用稍微不同的方式来表达。
I think it's slightly different.
我认为略有不同。
Really, there's two things going on here.
确实，这里发生了两件事。
And, the first is just to pay any kind of attention.
而且，第一个就是要给予任何形式的关注。
To be alert.
要保持警惕。
And then the second one would be, what do you pay attention to ?
那么第二个问题就是，你关注什么？
They're both important.
他们都很重要。
It's very easy to go through life paying attention to very little other than yourself, or very little than other than your financial wellbeing, or very little other than what gives you physical pleasure, your looks.
人们很容易在一生中只关注自己，只关注自己的财务状况，只关注给你带来身体愉悦和外表的东西。
Things that we would normally again, perhaps unfairly classify as superficial.
我们通常会再次将这些事情归为肤浅的东西，这可能是不公平的。
But, it's the second part of--so it's hard to pay attention to lots of things.
但是，这是第二部分——所以很难关注很多事情。
And, you might think about what those things should be.
而且，你可能会想这些东西应该是什么。
And, I don't think--we don't educate our children very well in this concept.
而且，我不认为——我们没有很好地教育我们的孩子这个概念。
It's certainly not part of school.
这当然不是学校的一部分。
This whole idea--I mean, we talked in passing about mindfulness and you could say even just thoughtfulness--this idea that you would notice, say, the distress of another person.
这整个想法——我的意思是，我们顺便谈到了正念，你甚至可以说只是体贴——这个想法是你会注意到，比如说，另一个人的痛苦。
It's one thing to say, 'I noticed that she was crying.
说“我注意到她在哭”是一回事。
That he was bleeding.' These are easy ones, relatively.
他在流血。相对而言，这些都是简单的。
But, there's subtle things often that people share that show pain and damage and heartache.
但是，人们经常会分享一些微妙的事情来表达痛苦、伤害和心痛。
And, they're hard to notice unless you're paying attention.
而且，除非您注意，否则很难注意到它们。
And, I think a lot of what you are saying in that paragraph--that I think is quite profound--is that just the art--the act--and it's an art also--of paying attention, is a skill to be worked on.
而且，我认为你在那段中所说的很多内容——我认为是相当深刻的——就是关注的艺术——行为——而且它也是一门艺术，是一种需要培养的技能。
And, then you could start thinking about what you want to pay attention to .
然后你就可以开始思考你想要关注什么了。
There's the episode we did with Lorne Buchman on his book, Make to Know.
我们在洛恩·布赫曼 (Lorne Buchman) 的书《Make to Know》中制作了这一集。
He talks a lot about the artist who doesn't plan out in performance art what's going to happen, but they attend to what might happen.
他经常谈到艺术家在行为艺术中并不计划将要发生的事情，但他们会关注可能发生的事情。
They're paying attention.
他们正在关注。
They're waiting.
他们在等待。
They're waiting to see something.
他们在等着看什么。
They're waiting to experience something.
他们在等待体验一些东西。
They're waiting to notice something.
他们正在等待注意到一些事情。
And, this sounds like--you know, it's one thing to sense another person's distress.
而且，这听起来像是——你知道，感受到另一个人的痛苦是一回事。
And [?], it's all kinds of things.
还有[?]，各种各样的事情。
It's about what you focus on, how you devote you spend your life.
这是关于你关注什么，你如何奉献你的一生。
And, I think in terms of morality, we often think about action--reasonably so--but attending, paying attention is another aspect of the moral life that you're suggesting here that I think is really beautiful.
而且，我认为就道德而言，我们经常考虑行动——这是合理的——但参与、关注是你在这里建议的道德生活的另一个方面，我认为这是非常美丽的。
Richard Gunderman: Yeah.
理查德·冈德曼：是的。
I think the greatest jazz album ever cut, Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue." I mean, the musicians, people like Cannonball Adderley and Bill Evans showed up at a CBS Studio in New York called The Church, not knowing what they were going to play.
我认为有史以来最伟大的爵士乐专辑是迈尔斯·戴维斯的《Kind of Blue》。我的意思是，音乐家们，像 Cannonball Adderley 和 Bill Evans 这样的人出现在纽约 CBS 的一家名为 The Church 的工作室，不知道他们要演奏什么。
And, that album may be the greatest album in the history of American Jazz, is improvised.
而且，这张专辑可能是美国爵士乐历史上最伟大的专辑，是即兴创作的。
People had to listen to each other and respond to each other in real time.
人们必须互相倾听并实时做出回应。
And, Tolstoy's short story, "Master and Man", is a great example.
托尔斯泰的短篇小说《师父与人》就是一个很好的例子。
At one point, Vasili in the blizzard decides he's got to save himself.
暴风雪中的瓦西里一度决定必须自救。
He leaves Nikita in a hole in the snow and rides off on the horse.
他把尼基塔留在雪地里的一个洞里，然后骑上马走了。
Now, as you've already indicated, he ends up right back at the sledge with Nikita.
现在，正如你已经指出的，他最终和尼基塔一起回到了雪橇上。
But, once he gets back, he sees something stir in the sledge.
但是，当他回来时，他看到雪橇上有什么东西在动。
It's Nikita.
这是尼基塔。
Nikita said something like, 'I'm dying.'
尼基塔说了类似“我快死了”之类的话。
Vasili hears that.
瓦西里听到了。
He attends to it.
他负责这件事。
He responds to it.
他对此作出回应。
He decides to open up his opulent, luxurious, warm coats, spread them out.
他决定打开他华丽、奢华、温暖的外套，将它们铺开。
And, to lie down on top of Nikita, sharing in a way the very most intimate resource he has, namely his own body warmth.
并且，躺在尼基塔身上，以某种方式分享他拥有的最亲密的资源，即他自己的身体温暖。
I don't think he said, 'Hmm, what would Immanuel Kant or John Stuart Mill tell me to do here?' He just in the moment heard and responded.
我不认为他说，‘嗯，伊曼纽尔·康德或约翰·斯图尔特·米尔会告诉我在这里做什么？’他只是一瞬间就听到了，并做出了反应。
And, in that response, he discovered an identity of self that he never knew he had.
并且，在那个回应中，他发现了他从未意识到的自我身份。
Russ Roberts: And, there's one other piece of that I think is interesting--I've never thought of--which is a couple other scenes before that, he's cold.
拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，还有一个我认为很有趣的片段——我从来没有想到过——这是之前的几个场景，他很冷。
Both of them are cold a lot of the time, mostly Nikita.
他们俩很多时候都很冷淡，尤其是尼基塔。
But, Vasili is cold, and he's struggling to fall asleep because they've decided to--they're stuck there for the night is what happens.
但是，瓦西里很冷，他很难入睡，因为他们决定——他们被困在那里过夜，就是这样。
And, he has this terrible sense of panic.
而且，他有一种可怕的恐慌感。
He's afraid of dying.
他害怕死。
And he soothes himself by going through his investments and thinking about how much money he's going to make.
他通过审视自己的投资并思考自己会赚多少钱来安慰自己。
It's a form of distraction.
这是一种分散注意力的形式。
And he forgets he's cold.
他忘记了自己很冷。
He forgets he might die.
他忘记了他可能会死。
And he's okay.
他没事。
But, the second time, he can't do it.
但是，第二次，他就做不到了。
He can't soothe himself.
他无法安慰自己。
The panic rises up within him.
他内心升起了恐慌。
And, I think that panic is an interesting metaphor for the challenge of paying attention.
而且，我认为恐慌是对注意力挑战的一个有趣的比喻。
So, many times our minds are racing with our worries and our fears and our excitement, sometimes.
所以，很多时候，我们的思绪有时会充满忧虑、恐惧和兴奋。
It's not all bleak.
一切并不都是黯淡的。
But it makes it harder to pay attention.
但这会让你更难集中注意力。
And so, up until that scene you just described, Vasili is incapable of paying attention.
所以，直到你刚才描述的那个场景，瓦西里都无法集中注意力。
All he can do is be distracted either by his panic--his mind racing in fear--or the way he soothes himself with this pacifier of his daydreams about his financial success.
他能做的就是要么被自己的恐慌分散注意力——他的大脑在恐惧中飞速运转——要么用这个安抚自己财务成功白日梦的安抚剂来安慰自己。
And, that makes it hard for him to notice that the person next to him is also cold and is also afraid of dying.
而且，这让他很难注意到，旁边的人也是冷漠的，同样是怕死的。
And, you know, I always like this line: 'Be kind every once in a battle.' And, I think it's so true.
而且，你知道，我一直喜欢这句话：“在战斗中每次都要友善。”而且，我认为这是真的。
It's hard to be a human being and it's easy to forget there are other people like you struggling to be human beings.
做人很困难，而且很容易忘记还有其他像你一样的人正在为做人而奋斗。
And, the paying-attention part is what redeems a lot of the lesser side of ourselves.
而且，集中注意力可以弥补我们自己很多不那么重要的一面。
Richard Gunderman: Vasili learns what's really worth paying attention to.
理查德·冈德曼：瓦西里知道什么是真正值得关注的。
Two quick sentences from Tolstoy's short story.
托尔斯泰短篇小说中的两句话。
This is referring to Vasili:
这是指瓦西里：
I mean, what we're really talking about, isn't so much good and bad.
我的意思是，我们真正谈论的并不是好与坏。
It's a matter of real and unreal.
这是一个真实与不真实的问题。
Vasili has tried to build his fortress, his mansion, of something fairly insubstantial that ultimately offers no comfort as he confronts the possibility of his own mortality.
瓦西里试图用一些相当虚无的东西建造他的堡垒、他的豪宅，当他面临自己死亡的可能性时，最终不会给他带来安慰。
But, he learns in that encounter with mortality, that there's something more substantial to which he can devote his life; and he chooses to act on that, even though the circumstances are dire.
但是，在与死亡的遭遇中，他了解到，还有更重要的事情可以让他奉献一生；尽管情况严峻，他还是选择采取行动。
Russ Roberts: So, you're a doctor.
拉斯·罗伯茨：那么，你是一名医生。
Right?
正确的？
And medicine in some dimension is a mechanical art.
医学在某种程度上是一门机械艺术。
It's about the anatomy of the body, chemical interactions of pharmaceuticals with our innards.
这是关于身体的解剖学、药物与我们内脏的化学相互作用。
We talk about bedside manner.
我们谈论床边礼仪。
It probably has--it certainly can comfort a patient.
它可能——它当然可以安慰病人。
It may contribute to their health.
这可能有助于他们的健康。
We understand that there's the placebo effect and psychological aspects of healing and curing that are quite complicated.
我们知道治疗和治疗的安慰剂效应和心理方面是相当复杂的。
But, I'm curious to what extent you're reading of things like Tolstoy affects your practice of medicine.
但是，我很好奇你读的托尔斯泰这样的作品在多大程度上影响了你的医学实践。
In other words, you talked about the attending physician.
换句话说，你谈到了主治医生。
Does Tolstoy, and other great works of art, does it help you attend better?
托尔斯泰和其他伟大的艺术作品是否可以帮助您更好地学习？
Does it make you a better doctor, do you think?
你认为这会让你成为一名更好的医生吗？
Richard Gunderman: Well, I'd like to think so.
理查德·冈德曼：嗯，我想是这样。
I think it can help make all of my colleagues better doctors.
我认为这可以帮助我所有的同事成为更好的医生。
But it only does so when we become better human beings.
但只有当我们成为更好的人时才会如此。
I mean, when will we learn that in order to be good doctors and good economists, we must first become good human beings?
我的意思是，我们什么时候才能知道，为了成为好医生和好经济学家，我们必须首先成为好人？
But, one of the things you learn is that, I feel very privileged that we have the best diagnostic and therapeutic tools that physicians have ever enjoyed in human history.
但是，您学到的一件事是，我感到非常荣幸，我们拥有医生在人类历史上享受过的最好的诊断和治疗工具。
It's an immense privilege to get to practice medicine in this country, in this age.
在这个国家、这个时代行医是一种巨大的荣幸。
But, the human mortality rate remains stubbornly fixed at exactly 100%.
但是，人类死亡率仍然顽固地固定在 100%。
None of us gets out of this alive.
我们没有人能活着摆脱这一切。
And, if we can treat our patients and colleagues as fellow pilgrims on this path that ends in mortality, I think it enhances our capacity to treat one another with compassion.
而且，如果我们能够像对待这条最终导致死亡的道路上的朝圣者一样对待我们的患者和同事，我认为这会增强我们以同情心对待彼此的能力。
You know?
你知道？
Rather than disdain, the way Vasili treats Nikita.
瓦西里对待尼基塔的方式不是蔑视，而是。
So, just being more aware of our shared humanity--the fact we're cut from the same cloth, we're made of the same alloy--that may not sound like much.
所以，只要更多地意识到我们共同的人性——事实上我们都是用同样的布料剪裁而成，我们是由同样的合金制成的——这听起来可能并不算什么。
But, I believe that can be a transformative insight that can become a habit and really change what we attend to in every patient encounter.
但是，我相信这可以成为一种变革性的见解，可以成为一种习惯，并真正改变我们在每次与患者接触时所关注的内容。
Russ Roberts: My guest today has been Richard Gunderman.
拉斯·罗伯茨：今天我的客人是理查德·冈德曼。
The story is "Master and Man." I'm not going to spoil it, but the title is one of my favorite parts of the book--of the short story.
故事是《师父与人》。我不会破坏它，但标题是这本书中我最喜欢的部分之一——短篇小说。
Richard, thanks for being part of EconTalk.
理查德，感谢您参与 EconTalk。
Richard Gunderman: Pleasure.
理查德·冈德曼：很高兴。
Thanks, Russ.
谢谢，拉斯。