See Randomness
April 2006, rev August 2009 Plato quotes Socrates as saying "the unexamined life is not worth living." Part of what he meant was that the proper role of humans is to think, just as the proper role of anteaters is to poke their noses into anthills.
2006 年 4 月，2009 年 8 月修订 柏拉图引用苏格拉底的名言“未经审视的生活不值得过”。他的部分意思是，人类的正确角色是思考，就像食蚁兽的正确角色是将鼻子伸进蚁丘一样。
A lot of ancient philosophy had the quality — and I don't mean this in an insulting way — of the kind of conversations freshmen have late at night in common rooms:
许多古代哲学都具有这样的品质——我并不是以侮辱的方式表达这一点——就像新生深夜在公共休息室里进行的对话一样：
What is our purpose?
我们的目的是什么？
Well, we humans are as conspicuously different from other animals as the anteater.
好吧，我们人类和食蚁兽一样与其他动物有着明显的不同。
In our case the distinguishing feature is the ability to reason.
在我们的例子中，显着特征是推理能力。
So obviously that is what we should be doing, and a human who doesn't is doing a bad job of being human — is no better than an animal.
显然，这就是我们应该做的，而一个不这样做的人就没有做好人类的工作——与动物一样。
Now we'd give a different answer.
现在我们会给出不同的答案。
At least, someone Socrates's age would.
至少，苏格拉底这个年纪的人会这么做。
We'd ask why we even suppose we have a "purpose" in life.
我们会问为什么我们认为我们的生活有一个“目标”。
We may be better adapted for some things than others; we may be happier doing things we're adapted for; but why assume purpose?
我们可能比其他人更适合某些事情；我们可能会更快乐地做我们适合做的事情；但为什么要假设目的呢？
The history of ideas is a history of gradually discarding the assumption that it's all about us.
思想史是一部逐渐抛弃一切都与我们有关的假设的历史。
No, it turns out, the earth is not the center of the universe — not even the center of the solar system.
不，事实证明，地球不是宇宙的中心，甚至不是太阳系的中心。
No, it turns out, humans are not created by God in his own image; they're just
不，事实证明，人类并不是上帝按照自己的形象创造的；人类是上帝按照自己的形象创造的。他们只是
one species among many, descended not merely from apes, but from microorganisms.
许多物种中的一个，不仅是猿类的后代，而且是微生物的后代。
Even the concept of "me" turns out to be fuzzy around the edges if you examine it closely.
如果你仔细观察的话，甚至“我”这个概念的边缘也会变得模糊。
The idea that we're the center of things is difficult to discard.
我们是事物的中心这一想法很难被抛弃。
So difficult that there's probably room to discard more.
如此困难以至于可能有空间丢弃更多。
Richard Dawkins made another step in that direction only in the last several decades, with the idea of the
理查德·道金斯 (Richard Dawkins) 在过去的几十年里又朝着这个方向迈出了一步，他提出了
selfish gene .
自私的基因。
No, it turns out, we're not even the protagonists: we're just the latest model vehicle our genes have constructed to travel around in.
不，事实证明，我们甚至不是主角：我们只是我们的基因构建的最新模型交通工具，可以用来四处旅行。
And having kids is our genes heading for the lifeboats.
生孩子是我们走向救生艇的基因。
Reading that book snapped my brain out of its previous way of thinking the way Darwin's must have when it first appeared.
读那本书让我的大脑摆脱了达尔文的思维方式，就像它第一次出现时那样。
(Few people can experience now what Darwin's contemporaries did when The Origin of Species was first published, because everyone
（现在很少有人能体验到达尔文的同时代人在《物种起源》首次出版时所做的事情，因为每个人
now is raised either to take evolution for granted, or to regard it as a heresy.
现在人们要么认为进化论是理所当然的，要么将其视为异端邪说。
No one encounters the idea of natural selection for the first time as an adult.) So if you want to discover things that have been overlooked till now, one really good place to look is in our blind spot: in our natural, naive belief that it's all about us.
没有人在成年后第一次遇到自然选择的想法。）因此，如果你想发现迄今为止一直被忽视的事物，一个真正值得关注的地方就是我们的盲点：我们自然而天真的相信一切都与我们有关。
And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do.
如果你这样做的话，预计会遇到猛烈的反对。
Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the
相反，如果您必须在两种理论之间进行选择，请选择
one that doesn't center on you.
一个不以你为中心的人。
This principle isn't only for big ideas.
这个原则不仅适用于伟大的想法。
It works in everyday life, too.
它也适用于日常生活。
For example, suppose you're saving a piece of cake in the fridge, and you come home one day to find your housemate has eaten it.
例如，假设您在冰箱里保存了一块蛋糕，有一天您回家发现室友已经吃了它。
Two possible theories: a) Your housemate did it deliberately to upset you.
两种可能的理论： a) 你的室友故意这样做是为了让你不高兴。
He knew you were saving that piece of cake.
他知道你正在节省那块蛋糕。
b) Your housemate was hungry.
b) 你的室友饿了。
I say pick b.
我说选b。
No one knows who said "never attribute to malice what
没有人知道是谁说的“永远不要将什么归因于恶意”
can be explained by incompetence," but it is a powerful idea.
可以用无能来解释”，但这是一个强有力的想法。
Its more general version is our answer to the Greeks: Don't see purpose where there isn't.
它更通用的版本是我们对希腊人的回答：不要在没有目的的地方看到目的。
Or better still, the positive version: See randomness.
或者更好的是，积极的版本：看到随机性。