????????Classification is a kind of human cognitive abilities. We are prone to sort out everything we see, hear, Smell, taste and touch, such as classing willow, poplar, ginkgo and oak as trees; lotus, chrysanthemum, peony and wintersweet as flowers; monkey, zebra, tiger and snake as animals; piano, violin, trumpet and flute as?instruments; hamburger, sandwich, cheese and bread as food. As there are hundreds of thousands of phenomena in the world and we humans are too limited in time, energy and wisdom to study them one by one, the most convenient and pragmatic way to explore the nature of everything and thereupon put them at the service of us is to research categories into which everything is arranged instead.?

???????歸類是人類認識能力當(dāng)中的一種，我們傾向于將自己看到的、聽到的、聞到的、嘗到的和觸摸到的歸為不同的類，例如將柳樹、楊樹、銀杏樹和橡樹歸為樹類；將荷花、菊花、牡丹花和臘梅歸為花類；將猴子、斑馬、老虎和蛇歸為動物類；將鋼琴、小提琴、小號和長笛歸為樂器類；將漢堡包、三明治、奶酪和面包歸為食物類。鑒于這個世界上有成千上萬種現(xiàn)象，我們?nèi)祟愐驗闀r間、精力和智慧太有限而無法逐一對它們進行研究，所以探究每件事物的本質(zhì)，并進而讓它們?yōu)槲覀內(nèi)祟愃米畋憬莺蛯嵱玫姆绞剑褪峭硕笃浯蔚貙ζ浞珠T別類地進行研究。?

????????As everything around us must be arranged into some categories, we human beings ought to be naturally put into a class. In spite of the fact that people vary widely in race, physique, disposition, education, occupation and background, scientists still tried to abstract some specific commonalities, also known as human nature, from finite samples via observation and experiment, (for instance, incentive mechaniSm can strengthen the behavior while punishment can weaken it; everyone is thirst for respect and approval from people around him, a man is apt to be depressed and look down upon himself when he is constantly rejected; maternal love is universal, almost every mother set her child’s life before hers, if necessary, she can even die for her darling), and make further efforts to help politicians initiate policies to manage and control 5 billion people around the world with only a few criteria.?

? ? ? ?既然我們身邊的每件東西都可以被歸為某一類，那我們?nèi)祟愐矐?yīng)該被自然而然地歸為某一類，盡管人與人之間在種族、體格、氣質(zhì)、教育、職業(yè)和成長環(huán)境等因素上存在諸多差異，但是科學(xué)家仍然試圖通過觀察和實驗從有限的樣本中抽象出一些具體的共性，也被稱之為人性，（例如，激勵機制能夠強化人的行為，而懲罰機制則能弱化人的行為；所有人都渴望得到別人的尊重和認可，如果他總是被拒絕的話就會產(chǎn)生抑郁情緒并進而輕視自己；母愛是普遍存在的，幾乎每一個母親都將自己孩子的生命看得比自己還重，在必要時甚至能為了自己的心肝寶貝去死），并進而試圖通過僅僅有限的幾條準(zhǔn)則就為政治家擬定出管理和控制全世界五十億人口的政策。?

????????The philosophers making reasonable assumptions on human nature throughout history are too numerous to mention, the following are the most important ones: Marx believed the essence of man is the sum total of all social relations; Freud regarded the nature of man as the primitive impulses and instinctive desires in the unconsciousness guided by happiness and satisfaction; Aristotle saw men as born political animals; Schopenhauer considered human nature as a kind of will to live; Christians believed that every human being is born with original sin, therefore the meaning of earthly life is to atone for it and reconcile with God. In spite of theories mentioned above, a school of thought holds that humans are not a species and thus by no means has a thing called the essence of man: if “the sum total of all social relations” can be seen as human nature, a solitary man is definitely not to be regarded as a human being; if “to win respect and approval from people around you” is deemed available to every man, how can you interpret a monk’s psychology? If, like Freud, you treat human and animal as equals and admit that every human being lives according to his instinctive desires, can you tell me why there are countless martyrs and ascetics through the ages? ??

? ? ? ?古往今來對人性做出了合理假設(shè)的哲學(xué)家不勝枚舉，現(xiàn)列舉最重要的幾位如下：馬克思認為人的本質(zhì)就是一切社會關(guān)系的總和；弗洛伊德將人性看作是一種以快樂和滿足為原則的無意識的原始沖動和本能欲望；亞里士多德認為人天生就是政治的動物；叔本華認為人的天性是一種生存意志；基督教認為每個人生來就有原罪，因此人生現(xiàn)世的意義就在于贖罪，并與上帝達成和解，盡管哲學(xué)家們眾說紛紜，卻有一派哲學(xué)家認為人不能被歸于某一個種屬，因而也沒有一個能稱之為人性的東西：如果“一切社會關(guān)系的總和”可以被看作是人性，那么離群索居者必定不能被當(dāng)作是人類；如果“得到身邊人的尊重和認可”這一信條對每個人都有效，那么和尚的心理又該如何解釋？如果如弗洛伊德所說，你可以將人類跟動物劃等號，并承認每個人都靠著本能欲望過活，那你能告訴我為什么古往今來有那么多的殉道者和苦行僧嗎？?

????????If it is incumbent upon someone to argue with me that mankind, as it could be counted as a species, has an essence, after all, my theory is not so convincing and simple as 1+1=2, then?I’m so sorry to tell him?that despite the fact that everything around us, known as object, can be sorted into some categories, mankind, known as subject, is an exception. You are probably to argue that according to Darwin, man evolved from lower animals and as a result acquired some characteristics of them. But actually, there is some fundamental change happened to?mankind at the very moment of its evolution. Mankind is such a special being that it has nothing in common with?anything else in the world, and none of us can make an universal judgment upon it. In my viewpoint, everyone is born a seed with any?possibilities. As time went by, it will sprout and grow into something as totally different from its kind as it is between oak, stone, lotus and cat. Can you treat Qin Hui and Yue Fei as equals? Can you say Eugenie Grandet and Bill Gates are the same in kind? Who can interpret Nero’s tyranny in the light of human nature? If they are of the same kind, why did?Robespierre bring Louis XVI?to the scaffold??Perhaps most people prefer to divide humans arbitrarily into several types, then there must be a kind of incommensurability between them. That is to say, a man’s essence has already been determined when the a seed has grown up into a giant tree, it can't be changed into another one of distant relationship. Different kinds of people, if get them together, must stand up for their own values and dispute with each other without stop. The best way to settle it, instead of assimilate one kind into another, is to part them and tell your dissidents?“you look after your own concern and leave me to my own affairs”.

? ? ? ?如果有人非得跟我爭辯人類作為一個種屬必定有一個本質(zhì)，畢竟我的理論不如1+1=2那般簡單且有說服力，那我只能遺憾地告訴他：盡管我們周圍的一切，也稱作客體，都能被歸入某一類，人類，也稱作主體，卻是個例外，你可能會爭辯道根據(jù)達爾文的觀點，人類是從低等動物進化而來，并因此具備了動物的某些特征，但事實上，在動物進化為人的那一刻，人類的身上發(fā)生了某種質(zhì)的變化，人類是一種如此特別的存在以至于他跟世界上任何其他的東西沒有一絲一毫地相似之處，沒有人能給人類做一個全稱判斷。在我看來，每個人生來只是一粒具有任何一種可能性的種子，隨著時間的演進，它將會發(fā)芽并成長為一個與自己同類大相徑庭、截然不同的東西，其差異的程度就好比橡樹、石頭、蓮花和貓之間的差別，話說你能把秦檜和岳飛看作是同類嗎？你能說歐也妮葛朗臺跟比爾蓋茨是一類人嗎？誰能用人性解釋尼祿的暴政？如果說羅伯斯庇爾和路易十六是同類，那么后者為何要將前者送上斷頭臺？或許大多數(shù)人偏向于將人分為不同的類型，那么不同種類的人之間就具有不可通約性，換句話說，一旦一粒種子長成了一顆參天大樹，一個人的本質(zhì)也就被決定了，它不可能被轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)殛P(guān)系較遠的另一種類型，如果把不同類型的人聚在一起，他們必定會因維護各自的價值觀而爭論不休，解決問題最好的方式不是將一類同化為另一類，而是天各一方，你走你的陽關(guān)道，我走我的獨木橋。?

??? ????Speaking of human nature, we have to mention collectiviSm. CollectiviSm presupposed the essence of man and, take it as a starting point, imposed its rules and regulations upon everyone within the environment without exception. The whole process likes raising pigs, as everyone of them doesn’t have any difference with its kind, the keepers are able to take care of everybody as long as they have examined the kind carefully and plan everything in line with?the instincts and habits of the kind. Which nature is a collectivist prone to think human beings have? Appetite, sexual desire, self-respect and a sense of security. Although “self-indulgence leads to degeneration and crime” is an irrefutable fact,?most people?are so rational as to get a job for themselves, create wealth with their hands and in this way get material rewards at their disposal. One can do whatever he wants as long as he has the money. As to his sexual needs, a man have to start a family and take responsibility for bringing up his child. Sexuality must have something to do with reproduction, it is discouraged by any collectivist?if it is merely for amusement. The operation mode of collectivistic society is just founded on these hypothesis, if you want to be regarded as a normal man and win respect from people around you, you need to regard them as golden rules, or you might be treated as an outcast and excluded from the circle of normal people.

? ? ? ?要說到人性，就不得不提集體主義，集體主義預(yù)設(shè)了人性，并以此為出發(fā)點，將它的條條框框無一例外地強加在身處其中的每個人身上，整個過程就好比是養(yǎng)豬，因為每只豬跟它的同類沒有任何區(qū)別，因此只要飼養(yǎng)員仔細研究豬這個種屬并依照此種屬的本能和習(xí)性擬定計劃，他就能照顧好其中的每一位成員，集體主義者會認為人類具備哪些天性呢？食欲、性欲、自尊心和安全感，盡管“縱欲會導(dǎo)致墮落和犯罪”是一個不爭的事實，但是絕大多數(shù)有正常思維能力的人偏向于找份工作、用他們的雙手創(chuàng)造財富并由此而得到任由自己支配的物質(zhì)回報，有了錢一個人就能做任何自己想做的事。至于性欲嘛，一個人必須組建家庭并承擔(dān)起撫養(yǎng)孩子的責(zé)任，性欲必須跟生育聯(lián)系在一起，純粹取樂的性欲是任何一個集體主義者所不提倡的。集體主義社會的運作模式正是建立在此種假設(shè)之上，如果你想被當(dāng)作一個正常人并贏得周圍人的尊重，你就必須將這些教條奉為金科玉律，否則你就會被當(dāng)作異類而排斥出正常人的圈子。

???????In a sense, this hypothesis of human nature is an inextricable part of the enlightenment thoughts and Adam Smith’s classical economics. The eternal theme of the Enlightenment is reason and freedom. To react against the medieval philosophy that human desires are evil and everyone has to repent and abandon them, enlightening thinkers made an assumption that a portion of human desires are reasonable. It is deemed inadvisable only when a human being resorts to some illegal and immoral means to achieve them. In contrast, a man sells his labor for material reward by which he satisfy his needs is deemed acceptable. On the other hand, Adam Smith’s theory holds that in a state with perfect legal system, an egoistic human being who needs money for his wants has?to find a job and contribute to the society, since there is no other means to get it legally. In this way, the more material rewards one gains, the more he contributes to the society. The nation will create maximum wealth as long as everyone within it is selfish, avaricious and find some legal way to fulfill it.?

? ? ? ?從某種意義上說，這種關(guān)于人性的假設(shè)跟啟蒙思想和亞當(dāng)斯密的古典經(jīng)濟學(xué)密不可分，啟蒙運動永恒的主題就是理性和自由，為了反抗中世紀將人的欲望看作是惡的并應(yīng)因此而悔罪和放棄欲望，啟蒙思想家假設(shè)了人的一部分欲望是合理的，唯一不可取的是人類訴諸非法和不道德的手段去滿足他的欲望，相較之下，一個人出賣自己的勞動力去換取物質(zhì)回報，進而以此來滿足自己的欲望則被看作是可取的。另一方面，亞當(dāng)斯密的理論認為在一個法制健全的國家里，自私利己、需要錢去滿足自己欲望的人在沒有其他合法的手段能搞到錢的情況下，只能找份工作并為社會貢獻自己的價值，當(dāng)一個人得到的物質(zhì)回報越多，他對社會的貢獻也就越大，只要身處國家之中的每一個人都是自私和貪得無厭的，并循著某種合法的方式去滿足它，一個國家就能創(chuàng)造出最大的財富。

??????? I was grown up in a collectivistic environment. Because I have very little in common with the shiftless, undistinguished majority, I have long since been seen as an outcast and driven out of the group of normal men. It pains me to think that everybody else is normal, whereas I am morbid. When I was rejected and marginalized at an early age, I felt myself being humbled to nothingness and even subjectively worse than a beggar. With the enrichment of my knowledge and life experience, I realized that although humans inherited instincts and desires from lower animals, (if Darwin’s theory of evolution is true), they are more than any animals. It is undeniable that appetite and sexual desire are the utmost driving force of the vast majority to survive, yet none of us can thus make an universal judgment to say that human beings live to satisfy these needs. Even if those ones study definitely not for fame and gain are few and far between, this kind of people do exist in real life; shiftless ones are the overwhelming majority, they can’t speak for everyone. Nobody could have denied that I can also live a wonderful life even if I was treated as an outsider. In my eyes, They are much more close to animals, whereas it is me who truly embodied the indispensable factors of a man: a kind of spiritual enrichment kept at all times.?

? ? ? ?我就成長在一個集體主義的環(huán)境當(dāng)中，因為我跟那些做一天和尚撞一天鐘、碌碌無為的絕大多數(shù)人沒有任何共同之處，所以我在很早以前就被他們視為異類并被排擠出正常人的圈子之外，當(dāng)我一想到所有人都很正常，只有我自己有毛病的時候就感到很痛苦，幼年時當(dāng)我遭到拒絕、被所有人邊緣化的時候，我感覺自己卑微的一文不值，甚至在主觀上連一個乞丐都比我要強，但是隨著我知識和閱歷的不斷增長，我意識到盡管人類從低等動物那里繼承了本能和欲望，（如果達爾文的進化論是真的），但是人類遠比動物要強得多。不可否認，食欲和性欲是絕大多數(shù)人生存的最大動力，但是沒有人能因此下一個全稱判斷，說人活著就是為了滿足各種欲望，即便那些拋棄了功名利祿做學(xué)問的人鳳毛麟角，這類人的確存在；盡管得過且過的人占壓倒性的絕大多數(shù)，但他們不能代表所有人，誰也不能否認即便我被視為一個局外人也能活出精彩的人生，在我看來，他們更接近于動物，而相較之下只有我才能體現(xiàn)出人之為人所必備的要素：時刻保持著一種精神上的充實感。?

? ?? When I changed my way of thinking, I felt much more relieved. And that is my viewpoint of human nature.?

? ? ? ?當(dāng)我轉(zhuǎn)變了思維方式以后，立馬就感到釋然了，這就是我對人性的理解。