公开课《死亡》QA
Q1
Plato had mentioned two kinds of birth in The Symposium, the birth of soul and the birth of body. So I’d like to ask you that, for those people who will die, who only have limited time and competence, if they have to choose one way to prolong their life, which one is better?
林谷停云：柏拉图在《会饮篇》里提到两种生育，一种是灵魂的生育，一种是肉体的生育。对于有死的人来说，时间、精力与能力都很有限，如果不得不去选择一种生命延续的方式，您会认为哪种更好呢？
In my class and in my book, I try to use the word "soul" only when I am talking about a view according to which the mind depends on something nonphysical, something separate from the body. And as I explain there, I do not actually believe in the existence of souls, in this sense. There is just the body. Often, however, when people talk about the soul all they are trying to do is to talk about the mind–the ability of a person to think, believe, plan, have goals, fear, love, be creative, and so on. And it is possible to have a body that is functioning in the mere biological sense (breathing, digesting, and so forth), while having lost the ability to think, plan, communicate. So we need to ask: when we want to stay alive, is it good enough to be alive in the biological sense, or do we also want to be alive mentally? My own view, and I think that most people would agree with me, is that what is valuable is being a person–being a body that can think, feel, love, plan, and so forth. In this sense, prolonging the life of the body is not good enough, what we want is to prolong the ability of the body to think, so what is valuable is prolonging the life of the mind (even though this is simply a way of prolonging the body).
谢利·卡根：在我的课程和书中，我只在谈到认为意识是依赖于非物质的，与肉体相分离的存在的观点时，才用到“灵魂”这个词。正如我所阐释的，在这一层面上，我并不真正相信灵魂的存在。只有肉体是真实存在的。常常，人们在谈到灵魂时，他们只是想表达意识——即人们思考、相信、计划、确定目标、恐惧、热爱、创造等等的能力。当然，也存在仅仅具有生物感知能力的肉体，能够呼吸、消化等等，却无法思考、筹划、交流。所以我们需要问：什么时候我们想要继续活着，仅仅具有生物感知能力就够了吗？还是我们想要有思想地活着？我个人的观点，也相信多数人会认同这个观点：人活着的价值在于成为一个具备思考、感知、热爱、筹划等等能力的人。在这一层面上，仅仅延长肉体的存在时间是远远不够的，我们想要的是延长思考的能力，所以关键在于延长意识的生命（尽管这同时也延长肉体的生命）。
Q2
You have mentioned the question of whether death is definitely bad. For those people in hospital who suffer a lot from illness, they want euthanasia. However, in China, they don’t have the right to choose their own fate of life or death. Their relatives would be subject to legal sanctions if they comply with the wishes of those patients. Under this situation, what’s your view about the meaning of death?
赵家小朵：你谈到，死是否一定是不好的。我想问问，在医院里，很多因为忍受不了痛苦，或因为经济或因为年事已高，想要安乐死以及无法继续救治只能等死的人们，因为法律原因，没有选择生死的权力（有许多家属遵行他们意愿但受法律制裁的案例），你怎么看待这种情况下死亡的意义？（问题很残忍，却困扰我）
When someone can look forward to living longer for a while with a life that is good overall, then death is bad, because it robs the person of the extra portion of life that is good. But if, sadly, someone is very sick and in pain and unable to have a life that is good overall, then when death comes it is not bad, but rather it is good, since it saves them from living longer with a life that is bad overall. But if death in such a case would be good, why must we wait for the disease to kill the person? Wouldn't it be better to help the person die sooner, painlessly, rather than waiting for the disease to kill them? This is the argument for euthanasia, and I do believe that euthanasia is morally permissible, and should be legalized. You tell me that this is not legal in China, and the same is true for most of the United States. But I hope that this will change in the future, I hope that more countries will realize that it is kinder to a person to help them die painlessly, when the future will otherwise be bad overall, than to force them to wait around, in pain, until they die from their disease. I think that opposition to euthanasia is based on mistaken beliefs about the nature of death and the value of life.
谢利·卡根：当某个人在拥有美好生活时渴望活得更久一些，那么这时候死亡是不好的，因为它剥夺了人们享受更多美好生命的机会。但是，倘若某个人得了重病无法感知到美好的生活，那么死亡的降临并非坏事，甚至这是一件好事，因为它将人们从痛苦的生命中解脱了出来。但是既然在这样的情况下死亡是好的，那为什么我们要等待疾病来杀死他们呢？这也是安乐死的争议所在，我个人认为安乐死在道德上是可容许的，也应当被合法化。你说这在中国是违法的，事实上，在美国大部分地区也是如此。但是我希望未来能有所改变，我希望更多的国家能够认识到，帮助那些无望的人们无痛苦地死去远比强迫他们在痛苦和疾病的煎熬中等待来得仁慈。我认为对于安乐死的反对是由于人们对于死亡的本质和生命的价值有着错误的看法。
Q3
Regarding suicide, there is a saying that life is more horrible than death yet another saying that if one is not afraid of death, how could he be afraid of living? Is it true that one is like a walking dead if he neither wants to die nor does he know anything about his own life?
Hermithan：有句话说生活比死亡更痛苦，却也有说连死都不怕害怕活着吗。不想死，却也不知活着的意义，是否形同已死？
I believe that suicide makes sense–rationally and morally–under certain circumstances. The issue is complicated, and partly depends of course on whether one has moral obligations to take care of others (for example a parent of young children). But putting these complications aside, the basic issue is whether the person who is considering suicide will be losing a portion of life that would be good overall, if they kill themselves, or whether, instead, they would be having a portion of life that is bad overall. That is, the question is whether you are better off dead, or better off staying alive (for at least a while longer). For most people, I think, the answer is that they would be better off staying alive, and so in most cases suicide would be a mistake. But there are cases that are exceptions, very similar to the cases where euthanasia would be permissible. Everything depends on the facts. So it is a mistake to think that in all cases death is worse than staying alive, and it is a mistake to think that in all cases staying alive is worse than death. Rather, it depends on the facts, and making a rational decision here requires taking an honest look at one's life. A common mistake is to think that problems one is facing now are such that they will never go away, that life will continue to get worse and worse. Often enough, one can overcome one's problems, or at least minimize their impact, and in such cases suicide is not reasonable.
谢利·卡根：我认为自杀在某些情况下，从理性和道德层面而言，是有意义的。这个问题很复杂，且部分取决于当事人是否有照顾他人的道德义务（如：父母对幼小的子女）。但是撇开这些复杂因素不谈，最根本的问题是想要自杀的人是否会因为自杀失去一段美好的生命，还是，相反的，他们活着只会拥有更多糟糕的生活。也就是说，问题取决于是你是死亡的结果更好，还是仍旧活着更好（至少多活一段时间）。对多数人而言，我想答案是活着更好，所以多数情况下人们认为自杀是错误的。但是也有一些特例，与安乐死问题的合理性类似。一切都取决于现实。因此，在所有情况下都认为死亡不如活着和在所有情况下都认为活着不如死亡都是错误的。这取决于现实状况，而做出理性的判断需要我们诚实地去观察生活。一个普遍的错误就是，认为自己所面临的状况是如此糟糕，永远都无法摆脱，而且生活会变得越来越糟糕。然而，人们常常能够克服自己所面临的问题，或者至少最大限度减少问题的影响，那么在这种情况下，自杀是不合理的。
Q4
I don’t oppose to death if life leaves us nothing but miseries. We have our own rights to choose to live or die if only we’ve thought the consequences through. However it’s the pets’ masters who decide whether to go for mercy killing and I never know if animals themselves want to live or not. Is it true that both men and animals are afraid to die and wish to live when they face death?
菁菁草木：如果生活的苦难值很大，只剩下艰辛，我不反对对生命的终结，我们可以自己选择生死，只是需要清楚和认真的思考自己的决定且不要给他人困扰。可是，动物安乐死是由主人决定，我从来不知道它们在最痛苦的时候是否还想活下去？是否在即将面临死亡时人或动物都会畏惧且有求生的意识？
Scientists have only recently begun to study the psychology and cognition of animals in a serious way, and we are constantly learning that many animals can think at a much higher and more complicated level than we had previously believed. Still, as far as I can tell, the following is true: very few animals have a sense of themselves as being a self, an individual distinct from other animals, with a past and a future. Very few animals are self-conscious, aware of themselves as existing across time, and having a desire to continue to exist into the distant future. Humans have this sense, and perhaps a few other animals do (some of the great apes, and perhaps some others, but not many). Now I believe that having this sort of self-consciousness is required to understand the notion of death, and to have a desire that one not die (as opposed to merely having an instinctive reaction to threats). So while I certainly believe that many animals are afraid of this threat or that threat, very few animals, other than humans, have a fear of death in and of itself. I think that this difference in our cognitive capacities also plays a role in giving humans a different moral status from that of other (lower) animals. It helps explain why it is indeed appropriate for the pet's owner to decide whether mercy killing is right for the given animal, while for a human, this decision should be made by the person himself or herself.
谢利·卡根：科学家最近才开始认真研究动物的心理和认知，我们也不断认识到很多动物的思维能够达到超乎人类想象的复杂程度。然而，就我所知，目前还很少有动物能够真正认知自我，了解自身与其他个体的区别，以及过去和未来的概念。大部分动物没有自我意识，无法察觉自身在时间尺度上的存在，也谈不上渴望未来继续存在的欲望。而人类具有这种意识，可能有一些其他动物也有（一些类人猿，可能还有一些其他物种，但不会很多）。目前，我认为有这种自我意识是理解死亡的意义所必须的，从而才有不想死亡的欲望（不同于面对威胁时的本能应激反应）。因此，尽管我相信很多动物有对于这种威胁或那种威胁的恐惧，但我仍旧认为除人类之外，很少有动物对自身的死亡及死亡本身有所畏惧。我认为，这种认知能力上的差异同样也起到了在道德状况上将人类与其他（较低等）动物区分开来的作用。这也帮忙解释了为什么宠物的主人帮自己的宠物决定安乐死是合理的，而对于人类的安乐死，这一决定却必须由当事人自己做出。
Q5
When and how was the concept of “soul” brought into being? What’s the motivation of the earliest proponents to articulate it?
由田甲里： “灵魂”这个概念是何时如何产生的？最早提出者又出于什么动机？
There are facts about people that are difficult to explain, like the fact that we can think, are conscious, can make plans, and communicate–boiled down, this is the fact that we have a mind. Could it possibly be that a merely physical object could have a mind? A thought like this has often seemed very hard to accept. After all, rocks don't think, rivers don't fall in love, wagons cannot make plans. So it was natural to think that merely physical objects could not have minds. Hence where there is a mind, there must be something more than the merely physical. This is the idea of the soul – something nonphysical that is the source of thinking and feeling, emotions and, more generally, all of our various mental activities. Even when people began to invent more complicated machines–clocks, or engines, or television sets, none of these had minds, and it seemed impossible to see how a mere machine could have a mind. So this too suggested that creatures like us, creatures with minds, must have something nonphysical, a soul. However, although it is easy to see how belief in a soul began, and why many find it a plausible idea, I nonetheless think that it is a mistake. As we learn more about us, we are able to explain more and more about us, including how the mind works, in physical terms. There is, I think, no need to posit anything nonphysical to explain the fact that we have minds.
谢利·卡根：很多关于人类的事实都是很难解释的，就像我们为什么能思考，有好奇心，有规划，能够交流——归根结底，是我们为什么有思想这一事实。有没有可能一个纯粹的物理对象就拥有思维呢？这样的想法往往是令人难以接受的。毕竟，岩石并不能思考，河流不会陷入热恋，火车不会制定计划。所以我们自然而然地认为一个纯粹的物理对象不可能拥有思维。因此，有思维的地方，也一定有纯粹物质之外的东西。这就是“灵魂”的概念——某种作为思想，感受，情绪以及其他各种各样精神活动来源的非物质存在。即便人们开始发明一些更复杂的机器——时钟，发动机，或是电视机，但没有一样是有思想的，而且让一个纯粹的机器拥有思想似乎是不可能的。所以这也就印证了，像我们这样的生物，拥有思想的生物，一定具备某种非物质的东西，那就是灵魂。然而，即便这看上去似乎很容易就解释了信仰灵魂的开端，以及为什么很多人认为这是合理的想法，但我认为这是错误的。当我们对自身了解越多时，我们就能够解释越来越多关于人类的事实，包括在物理层面上思维如何运作。我认为，我们没有必要去假定一些非物质的存在来解释我们拥有思想这个事实。
Q6
When did the word “ghost” first appear in the history? Under which situation? Do you have any scientific means to prove or crush its existence? Can you explain the phenomenon of human’s momentary recovery of consciousness just before death?
哎呀nora：事物不可能空穴来风，历史神话大多数也是由现实框架构建的，“鬼魂”这个词历史上第一次出现是什么时候？在什么样的情况下出现，出现时这个词的情感态度是怎样的？对于“鬼魂”是否存在，怎么用科学的方法去证实它或者粉碎它？对于“回光返照”这种事，有什么科学依据可以来说明下？
I think it is possible that there are ghosts, in the sense that this is an empirical claim, and we need to consider the evidence for and against believing in it. But the question is always whether the best explanation of the evidence is that there are indeed ghosts, or whether some other less exciting explanation is better. Although the subject is very complicated, and there is a great deal of evidence to be considered on each side, my own view is that we do not have good reason to believe in ghosts.
谢利·卡根：我认为鬼魂是有可能存在的，在某种意义上这是一种经验主义的说法，而我们需要考虑支持或反对相信它的证据。但问题是对证据的最佳解读是否是“的确有鬼魂”，还是其他一些不那么刺激的解读更好。虽然主体很复杂，而且每一方都有大量证据来证明，我个人的观点是我们没有足够好的理由来相信有鬼魂。
Q7
If my brain is parted into two and both of them have an independent personality, as you have mentioned, the original “I” was dead and there are two other men now, should I feel pity about that? What do you think of it?
李X包：如果把我的大脑分成两半，它们都存活下来而且拥有了独立的人格。按照老师的讲解，原本的那个“我”其实已经死了，现在是两个另外的人（大脑论），那么我应该觉得可惜吗，老师是怎么看的。或者自己被复制出了另外一个和自己一模一样的人，我会感到恐慌，这又如何看待呢？
This kind of case is only science fiction, of course, but it is fascinating, from a philosophical point of view, to think about. My own view is that if my brain were to split in the way you describe, then I will be dead, and neither of the two men who then are the result would be me. However, although I would not survive such an operation, much of what is valuable about survival would be there in this case anyway. That is, in some ways splitting like this would be almost as good as survival: there would be people with my memories, who care about the things I care about, and who have the same goals as I do, who will try to write my books (the same way I would have done!), and make the world a better place. Of course, on the other hand, in some ways, things would be much more complicated if there were two of "me" like this. After all, who would live with my wife? Who would get to spend time with our children? Who would get my job? Still, we can imagine that this sort of operation became very common, so that people "split" all the time. Then perhaps we would develop new forms of family and society to deal with this, and it would open up new possibilities! As I say, this is a fascinating case to think about.
谢利·卡根：这种情况只会出现在科幻小说中，但是从哲学角度来探讨也是很有趣的。我个人的观点是如果我的大脑像你所描述分裂了，那我就死了，而作为结果存活下来的两个人都不会是我。然而，尽管我不会从这样的手术中存活下来，但是很多有价值的东西仍旧存在。从某些方面来说，像这样的分裂就像活着一样有价值：将会有人延续我的记忆，关心我所关心的事情，有着和我一样的目标，努力写我的书（用我的方式！），并且使这个世界变得更好。当然，从另一方面来说，事情会变得比较复杂，因为有两个这样的“我”。到底谁会和我的妻子一起生活呢？谁来花时间陪伴我的孩子呢？谁来做我的工作？而且，我们还可以想象这种手术变得非常普遍，所以人们随时随地都在分裂。那么我们或许就会发展一种新的家庭和社会模式来应对这些问题，这将开辟出很多新的可能性！正如我所说的，这是一个很有趣的设想。
Q8
What if scientific progress can make people immortal? Will some theories explaining why we are mortal, some genetic-related theories, make it possible to find a way of stopping human from aging?
SEVEN3121：如果科技进步使得人可以不死，会怎样呢？一些解释为什么我们会死亡的理论，那些与基因有关的力量，是否能够使人类找到阻止衰老的办法？
I am confident that advances in science will allow us to live longer, perhaps slowing down the aging process, and allowing for us to grow replacement organs when our hearts and livers and kidneys, and so on, wear out. But I don't think we will ever be immortal. And that is a good thing, since I believe that immortality would be horrible. (What would be best of all would be to be able to live as long as one wants, in good health, until one doesn't want to live any longer, and then to be able to die peacefully.)
谢利·卡根：我相信科技的发展能使我们活得更久，或许能够减缓衰老过程，允许我们在心脏、肝脏、肾脏等衰竭时长出新的替代器官。但是我不认为我们能够得到永生。这是一件好事，因为我觉得永生是一件很可怕的事情。（最好的情况是，我们能够健康地活到我们想活的年纪，直到我们不想再继续活下去了，然后可以选择平静地死去。）
Q9
What’s your opinion about the relationship between death and religion? Do people believe in religion because of the fear of death?
SilvenXie：对于死亡和宗教的关系，你有什么见解？人是因为害怕死亡，才信仰宗教的吗？或者说是其中一个重要的原因？
Religion plays many roles, one thing it does is to provide an answer to questions we have about life, and death, and the possibility of an afterlife. And as you suggest, I am sure that for many people part of the appeal of religion is that some religions offer the possibility of an afterlife, or a heaven, and this may help with those who are afraid to die. But such beliefs–even if they are false, as I believe–are not the only reason to have a religion, for religions also teach about ethics, and how to live with one another, and they teach about the things that are most valuable. Even if one decides that there is no afterlife, one might still find meaning and value in religion. But here too, it isn't as though all religions teach the same thing, so one must study and compare, so as to find the religion that comes closest to the truth (or decide, for that matter, that none do).
谢利·卡根：宗教扮演了很多角色，其一就是提供一个可能的答案，解答人们关于生命、死亡及来世的疑惑。正如你所提到的，我能肯定对于很多人而言，他们对于宗教的依赖部分源于宗教对于来世的设想，或者说关于天堂的设想，而这或许能够帮助到那些畏惧死亡的人。但这样的信念——尽管在我看来是错误的——并不是宗教存在的唯一意义，因为宗教也教给人们伦理观，教人们如何与他人相处，以及什么是最有价值的。即便一个人不相信有来世，他仍旧能在宗教中找到意义和价值。但是同样，并非所有宗教都教给人们一样的东西，所以人们需要进行学习和对比，来寻找最接近真理的宗教（或者决定不需要宗教）。
Q10
When I am going to die, I will worry about my family because they will miss me and feel sad. I want to know how to comfort people who are facing the death of their beloved ones.
没有故事的覃同学：如果我要死了，我会很担心我的家人。因为他们会思念我，会悲伤。我想知道，当一些人失去亲爱的人的时候，如何才能安慰他们。
This is one of the hardest things about death, being separated from the ones we love, and in some ways, as you suggest, it is particularly bad for those who are still alive. It is appropriate to feel sad when someone you love has died. If the person was worthy of your love, then it makes sense to feel grief at their loss, or even at the thought of losing them soon. So if I were near death, I would not try to talk my family out of feeling sad, and when I have lost members of my family I have felt grief. But in time, I think, the grief can grow less, and you can spend more time remembering the loved one with joy and gratitude for all that they gave you in your life. Eventually, the balance of sadness to joy can shift, and we can look back and be glad for the time we had together. So perhaps this is what I would try to say to those who are facing my own imminent death that I hope that in time they will remember me with love and joy, rather than simply sorrow.
谢利·卡根：与我们所爱的人分离是死亡最艰难的事情之一，而在某种意义上，正如你所提到的，这对于仍旧活着的人而言是尤其艰难的。当所爱的人死亡时，人们感到悲伤是合理的。如果这个人值得你爱，那么在他死后又或者在想到他很快就要死亡时感到悲痛是有意义的。所以如果我快死了，我不会试图让我的家人节哀。在我失去亲人时我也会感到悲伤。但是随着时间的流逝，我认为这种悲伤会减少，而你也能够花更多的时间用愉悦的心态来感恩他们曾经给予你的一切。最终，悲伤与欢乐将达成平衡，我们可以回顾过往，为彼此共同度过的时光感到开心。所以，也许这也是我想告诉那些即将面对我的死亡的人的，我希望假以时日，当他们记起我时，内心是充满爱与喜悦的，而非仅仅是悲伤。
原文：死亡