叔本華如何看待《傲慢與偏見》主角們？
介紹
至少在一個方麵，奧斯汀的生活很像叔本華所描述的那樣：”如果…無拘無束的閑暇和高超的智慧，恰好在同一個人身上，那就是一大幸事； 如果命運到目前為止是有利的，一個人就可以過上更高的生活，這種生活受到保護，免受人類苦難的兩個相反來源：謀生的痛苦和閑暇的無聊…”
擁有叔本華所說的“財富”，奧斯汀創作了她關於愛情和婚姻的傑作《傲慢與偏見》。 但是，對於這個狹隘的話題，哲學家能說多少呢？
讓我們先從奧斯汀的書中的一句話。 “驕傲更多地與我們對自己的看法有關；虛榮是對我們希望別人如何看待我們。” 再看看叔本華在《人生的智慧》中的評論：驕傲是對自己的直接欣賞。 虛榮是一種從外部間接獲得這種欣賞的願望。”
《人生的智慧》是關於“幸福學”的。 叔本華在 1851 年寫了這本書，也就是奧斯汀於 1817 年去世 24 年後。我不假設這位哲學家讀過或沒讀過奧斯汀的書。 但在更高的層麵上，前者“點評”了後者代表作中的眾多主角。 讓我們看看其中的一些。
菲茨威廉·達西
他是故事中最富有的人。 根據一些分析，他在他那個時代是英格蘭前 1% 的人之一。
他的驕傲可以從他對伊麗莎白（後來成為他的妻子）在由她的家人主持的舞會上說的話中體現出來：“在這樣的社會中，以這種方式度過許多夜晚是多麽令人難以忍受；這些人 無味, 喧鬧； 虛無，啥都不是卻自以為是”
叔本華認為人類的幸福來自三類：“一個人是什麽 (人格、健康……），擁有什麽，以及…在別人的評價中的地位…”。他認為其中第一個最重要，第二個次之，第三個可以忽略。
我想加上“origin”（起點）來涵蓋人生中最重要的彩票。 “起點”的意義不言而喻。 比較一個在美國出生的孩子和一個在北朝鮮出生的孩子。
看來叔本華本人也支持我的補充。 “生來就有足夠的生活依靠的人，通常具有一定程度的獨立思想； 他習慣昂首挺胸； 他還沒有學會乞丐的所有技巧； 也許他甚至有點自以為擁有才能，正如他應該知道的那樣，這些才能永遠無法與卑鄙的平庸相提並論。”
叔本華和奧斯汀恰好出身於小康家庭。 他們倆都不擔心幸福的先決條件之一：起點。
羅素在《閑散的讚美》中評論道：“閑暇對於文明來說是必不可少的，……”
想象如果沒有閑暇，奧斯汀、叔本華或羅素會對人類文明做出怎樣的貢獻？
伊麗莎白·班納特
從表麵上看，傲慢、虛榮、嫉妒是奧斯汀這本書的主線。 然而，衝突的根源要麽是財產，要麽是核心人物之間的淨資產差異。
《傲慢與偏見》中的所有主角都是以收入為標誌的，達西1萬英鎊，賓利5000英鎊，班納特2000英鎊等等。這是一種深深植根於西方人最偉大思想中的哲學，無論是奧斯汀還是叔本華。 “生命、自由和財產是保障人類文明進步的三大要素，正如啟蒙運動的主要人物約翰·洛克所寫的自然法。 他們並不害羞地表現出來。
作為一個鄉紳家庭的成員，伊麗莎白與達西相比被認為是窮人。但是當達西對她的小世界表現出鄙視時，她感到了驕傲和受傷，以至於她差點錯過了婚姻。隻有在和解之後，她才“充滿期待地期待著他們離開社交圈子，這個社交圈子對兩人都不太令人愉悅...”。在她的內心深處，她看不起她所處的圈子。她確實期待著通過與達西結婚，走向貴族生活。
不祥的是，叔本華對她擺脫社會地位的可能性並不樂觀。 他評論說：“沒有人可以超越自己的個性。 動物，無論處於何種環境，都處於自然不可逆轉地賦予它的狹窄範圍內； 因此，我們想讓寵物快樂的努力必須始終保持在它的本性範圍內，並限製在它能感覺到的範圍內。 人也是如此； 他所能獲得的幸福程度，是由他的個性預先決定的。 更特別的是精神力量，它一勞永逸地固定了他獲得更高種類快樂的能力。”
我不確定每個人都能接受這種比較。 雖然不要指望別人跳出他的“個性”，但一個人有很大的提高是可能的。
夏洛特·盧卡斯
夏洛特既不富有也不漂亮。 我想，對於大多數讀者來說，她並不是書中印象最深的那個。 然而，她有智慧。 不管別人的意見，她都會做出正確的決定。 柯林斯先生向她最好的朋友伊麗莎白求婚，但被拒絕了。 然後他立即轉向夏洛特。 她毫不猶豫地接受了他，並幸福地結婚了。 她知道伊麗莎白和她的家人會做出強烈的負麵反應。 她處理得很優雅。
這正是叔本華試圖教導他人的觀點：“因此，如果我們適當地將一個人的自身價值和對他自己的價值與他在他人眼中的價值進行比較，這將極大地促進我們的幸福。 前者之下是填補我們存在的範圍並使其成為現實的一切，簡而言之，所有已經在人格和財產的標題下考慮和總結的優勢； 而這一切發生的領域就是人自己的意識。 另一方麵，我們在他人眼裏是他們的意識，而不是我們的意識；” 哲學家似乎在鼓勵夏洛特：“隻有在這樣的幸運下，一個人才能說是生來自由，才能……成為自己時間和力量的主人，每天早上都能說，今天是我自己的。”
她對婚姻的決定不是偶然的，因為她的智慧可以從她對朋友的建議中看出。
對於簡的婚姻，她對閨蜜伊麗莎白這樣評價姐姐簡麵對心愛的追求者“如果一個女人隱瞞自己的感情……，她可能會失去固定他的機會； 到那時，相信世界同樣處於黑暗之中將隻是一種可憐的安慰。”的確，簡的追求者賓利先生幾乎相信簡對他不感興趣，因為她的矜持的態度。
盡管所有人都對達西先生看似傲慢的態度頗為苛刻，但她是唯一對達西寬容的人：“一個擁有家庭、財富、一切都對他有利的如此優秀的年輕人，會高度評價自己不足為奇。 如果我可以這樣表達，他有權感到自豪。”
對於一般的婚姻，她頗有哲理：“婚姻幸福完全是機緣巧合。 如果雙方的傾向彼此如此熟悉，或者事先如此相似，那絲毫也不會增加他們的幸福。 他們總是繼續成長到足以與事後不同的程度，以至於有他們的煩惱； 最好盡可能少地了解與你共度一生的人的缺點。”
班納特夫人
表麵上，她表現得像個小醜。 然而，奧斯汀評論道：“為了她的家人，她實現了讓這麽多孩子成家的熱切願望，產生了如此令人愉快的效果，使她成為一個明智、和藹可親、見多識廣的女人“
我懷疑班納特夫人從不懂事到懂事的轉變可能僅僅因為她的女兒們嫁得好，而且她經常與社會上流社會打交道。 叔本華說：“…每個人的一生都打上了相同性格的烙印，無論他的外在環境如何變化； 它就像一個主題的一係列變體。”
然而，她無時無刻不為女兒的婚姻著想。 她當然有傳統的智慧，而不是虛榮心。
簡·班納特
正如叔本華所說，“美貌是一封公開的推薦信，讓人心生好感。”
簡很幸運得到了推薦，她最終嫁給了一個有錢的好男人賓利。 長得漂亮的人生活得更好，這對普通人來說似乎是不公平的。 好吧，現實和統計數據都表明，“漂亮者生存”。
維肯
奧斯汀筆下的威肯是個遊手好閑的人、賭徒、欠債的人，一個誹謗他人的人。
叔本華這樣描述這種類型：“讓他成為最沒有價值的流氓或最愚蠢的野獸，一個遊手好閑者、賭徒、債務人，簡而言之，一個無足輕重的人。 往往就是這種喜歡侮辱人的家夥……越是可鄙可笑的人，越是能開口說話。”
這種描述是如此準確，以至於人們可能會認為奧斯汀的作品是這位哲學家思想的源泉。
結語
考慮到奧斯汀從未結婚，她所創造的巧妙且富有創意的對話令人驚訝。
她出自一個富裕家庭，12歲開始寫作，就像瑪麗·雪萊一樣，也是一個早熟的女孩，18歲時寫下了她的第一部小說《弗蘭肯斯坦》。這兩本書都更注重內心思考而非情節，引發讀者的推理。然而，更令人驚奇的是，奧斯汀對這個傳統主題的精湛呈現引導人們進行哲學思考。
我碰巧知道一些讀者，包括西方人、亞洲人、年輕人和老年人，都喜歡這本書。所有這些讀者都碰巧是女性。也許這個觀察帶有些許偏見，無論是讀者還是我自己。
（注：我先用英語寫的書評，後用ChatGPT譯成中文。有點拗口，但隻改了譯得太離譜的。）
Title: How does Schopenhauer view “Pride and Prejudice”?
At least in one aspect, Austen’s life resembles Schopenhauer’s as the latter described: If … undisturbed leisure and great intellect, happen to coincide in the same person, it is a great piece of fortune; and if the fate is so far favorable, a man can lead the higher life, the life protected from the two opposite sources of human suffering, pain and boredom, from the painful struggle for existence, and the incapacity for enduring leisure …”
Having the “fortune” as Schopenhauer set forth, Austen created her masterpiece “Pride and Prejudice”, on love and marriage. But, how much can the philosopher say about this narrow topic?
Let’s first pick up a quote from Austen’s book. “Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves; vanity to what we would have others think of us.” Then look at Schopenhauer comments in “The Wisdom of Life”: “Pride works from within; it is the direct appreciation of oneself. Vanity is the desire to arrive at this appreciation indirectly, from without.”
“The Wisdom of Life” is about “Eudaemonology”. Schopenhauer wrote it book in 1851, 24 years after Austen’s death in 1817. I do not suggest that the philosopher had either read or not read Austen’s book. However, at a higher level, the former “commented” on many of the protagonists in the latter’s masterpiece. Let’s look at some of them.
Fitzwilliam Darcy
He is the richest man in the story. According to some analysis, he is among the top 1% in England in his time.
His pride can be manifested by what he told Elizabeth, who became his wife later, in a ball which was hosted by her family: “how insupportable it would be to pass many evenings in this manner,—in such society; The insipidity, and yet the noise; the nothingness, and yet the self-importance of all these people!”
Schopenhauer believes human happiness comes from three classes: “What a man is (personality, health…), What a man has.., and How a man stands in the estimation of others…” and the 1st one is the most important, the 2nd one is not as much as the 1st, and the 3rd can be ignored.
I would like to add “origin” (starting point) to cover the most important lottery in one’s life. The significance of “origin” is self-evident. Compare a child born in USA with one in North Korea.
It seems Schopenhauer himself support my addition. “the man who is born with enough to live upon is generally of a somewhat independent turn of mind; he is accustomed to keep his head up; he has not learned all the arts of the beggar; perhaps he even presumes a little upon the possession of talents which, as he ought to know, can never compete with cringing mediocrity”
Schopenhauer and Austen happen to be from well-off families. Both of them do not worry about the one the prerequisites of the happiness: Origin.
Russell commented, in “In Praise of Idleness: “Leisure is essential to civilization, …”
Imagine that without leisure, what Austen, Schopenhauer, or Russell would have contributed to human civilization?
Elizabeth Bennet
On surface, Pride, vanity, jealousy, are the main thread of Austen’s book. However, the conflicts are rooted either in property or from net worth difference among the central figures.
All protagonists in Pride and Prejudice are marked by their income, Darcy £10,000, Bingley £5,000, Bennet £2,000, and etc. It is a philosophy deeply rooted in the greatest minds of westerners, Austen and Schopenhauer alike. “life, liberty, and estate are the 3 elements to safeguard the progress of human civilization, as John Locke the main figure of the enlightenment wrote as Natural Law. They are not shy to show it.
From country gentry’s family, Elizabeth is considered poor comparing to Darcy. But she is proud and felt hurt when Darcy showed disdain to her microcosm; she was so upset that she almost missed the marriage. Only after reconciliation, “she looked forward with delight to the time when they should be removed from society so little pleasing to either...”. In her heart she did look down upon her circle. She was indeed looking forward to the aristocratic life in front of her, by marrying up to Darcy.
Ominously, Schopenhauer is not optimistic about possibility of her getting out of her social rank. He commented: “No one can get beyond his own individuality. An animal, under whatever circumstances it is placed, remains within the narrow limits to which nature has irrevocably consigned it; so that our endeavors to make a pet happy must always keep within the compass of its nature, and be restricted to what it can feel. So it is with man; the measure of the happiness he can attain is determined beforehand by his individuality. More especially is this the case with the mental powers, which fix once for all his capacity for the higher kinds of pleasure.”
I am not sure everyone can accept this comparison. While one should not expect others to jump out of his “individuality”, it is possible for one to improve significantly.
Charlotte is neither rich nor pretty. I guess, to most readers, she is not the most impressive one in this book. However, she has wisdom. She would make the right decision regardless others’ opinion. Mr. Collins asked for the hand of her best friend Elizabeth, got turned down. Then he turned to Charlotte immediately. Without hesitation, she accepted him and happily married. She knows that there would be violent negative response from Elizabeth and her family. She handled it elegantly.
That is what exactly Schopenhauer try to teach about others’ opinion: “Therefore it will very much conduce to our happiness if we duly compare the value of what a man is in and for himself with what he is in the eyes of others. Under the former comes everything that fills up the span of our existence and makes it what it is, in short, all the advantages already considered and summed up under the heads of personality and property; and the sphere in which all this takes place is the man's own consciousness. On the other hand, the sphere of what we are for other people is their consciousness, not ours;” The philosopher seemed to encourage Charlotte: “Only under a favorable fate like this can a man be said to be born free, to be … master of his own time and powers, and able to say every morning, This day is my own.
Her decision on marriage is not by chance, for her wisdom can be seen by her advices to her friends as following.
Regarding Jane’s marriage, she commented to best friend Elizabeth on her sister Jane facing a suitor she loves “If a woman conceals her affection…, she may lose the opportunity of fixing him; and it will then be but poor consolation to believe the world equally in the dark” Indeed, Jane’s suitor Mr. Bingley almost believe Jane was not interested in him, because of her composed attitude.
While all are quite harsh on Mr. Darcy’s seemingly arrogance, she is the only one lenient: “One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man with family, fortune, everything in his favor, should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud.”
On marriage in general, she is philosophical: “Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other, or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life.”
Mrs Bennet
On surface, she behaved like a clown. However, Austen commented “for the sake of her family, that the accomplishment of her earnest desire in the establishment of so many of her children produced so happy an effect as to make her a sensible, amiable, well-informed woman for the rest of her life”
I doubt that the change from insensible to sensible on Mrs. Bennet could happen just because her daughters married well and she is often dealing with the upper class of the society. Schopenhauer said: “…the life of every man is stamped with the same character throughout, however much his external circumstances may alter; it is like a series of variations on a single theme.”
However, she thinks for her daughters’ marriage all the time. She certainly has the conventional wisdom, not the vanity.
Jane Bennet
As Schopenhauer claimed, “Beauty is an open letter of recommendation, predisposing the heart to favor the person who presents it.”
Jane is the lucky one to have that recommendation of beauty; she married to Bingley, a nice rich man. It seems unfair to ordinary people that the prettiest have better life. Well, both reality and statistics shows that “Survival of the Prettiest”.
Austen’s depictured Wickhen as an idler, gambler, debtor, a man slanders others.
Schopenhauer described this type: “let him be the most worthless rascal or the most stupid beast, an idler, gambler, debtor, a man, in short, of no account at all. It is usually this sort of fellow who likes to insult people …the more contemptible and ridiculous a man is,--the readier he is with his tongue.”
The description is so accurate that one could help to think that Austen’s work is the source of the philosopher’s thoughts.
It is surprising, considering that Austen was never married, she created ingenious and resourceful conversations.
She was from a well-off family, and started writing when she is 12, just like Mary Shelly, also a precocious girl, wrote her first novel Frankenstein at age 18. Both books focus more on the inner thinking than plots, provoking reader’s reasoning. However, it is even more amazing that Austen’s sophisticated presentation on this traditional topic leads to leading to philosophical thinking.
I happen to know some readers, westerners, Asians, young and old, love this book. All of them happen to be ladies. Maybe this observation has a tinge of prejudice, either of the readers, or me.
