2025年3月22日第21次聚會
The Present Alone is Happiness
閱讀文本：
[簡]作为生活方式的哲学-皮埃尔·阿多与雅妮·卡尔利埃、阿尔诺·戴维森对话录 -- 皮埃尔·阿多The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson by Pierre Hadot, translated by Marc Djaballah, Stanford University Press, 2009
任務：
- 一、最多六分鐘、最少四分鐘
- 二、不要說這章大意
- 三、從這章前半挑出一個你感興趣的點（疑問、觸動、不解...），後半也挑一個點。
- 四、報告內容就是這兩點，必須涉入你自己（可以是任何角色身分情境經歷下的自己）至少二分之一（包括為何感興趣，想如何追問實踐等），不需要太多外在知識訊息，重點是如何結合書中文字和自己（的哪個部分或面向）。
Chapter 2 學者、教師、哲學家 (p.37- 63)
我想先分享談論精神修練的部分，我滿有興趣第45到47頁之間，Hadot在區分宗教跟哲學的部分。在第46頁上面，Hadot提到精神修練(Spiritual exercise)的概念來自希臘哲學。但是希臘時期的宗教本身並不包含個人的內在修練，並提到佛教跟道教有包含精神修練的哲學生活方式。
我不是虔誠(religious)的人，對每個宗教都不太熟悉，在想Hadot提到的這幾個宗教，好奇Hadot這邊提到佛教跟道教的精神修練是指什麼。感覺好像可能是指有些宗教裡的「內觀」，或者是「禪」。不過這就是一種感覺，沒什麼實證。因為我對什麼是內觀什麼是禪，概念也是模模糊糊的。
在這一段最後面提到「精神的隱退」，讓我覺得類似東方所說的：「小隱隱於野，中隱隱於市，大隱隱於朝。」
We believe that spiritual exercises are of a religious order because there are Christian spiritual exercises. But spiritual exercises appeared in Christianity only and precisely because of Christianity's will, beginning in the second century, to present itself as a philosophy on the model of Greek philosophy, that is, as a mode of life comprising spiritual exercises borrowed from Greek philosophy. In the Greek and Roman religions, which did not involve an inner commitment of the individual but were primarily social phenomena, the notion of spiritual exercises was absent.
However, many religions, such as Buddhism and Taoism, impose a mode of life on their adepts that includes spiritual exercises. Thus there can be philosophical spiritual exercises and religious spiritual exercises. For example, in the heyday of secularism, Jules Payot, in his book L'Éducation de la volonté [The Education of the Will), published in 1900, recommended what I call spiritual exercises; thus he discussed spiritual retreat - which is possible, he said, even in the midst of a crowd—as an exercise for the examination of conscience, or the different techniques of self-mastery.
同一頁(p.46)第二段，Hadot跟另一位哲學家Brunner談論到區分宗教與哲學。我覺得他在這邊是想把哲學抽離出來，無論是哲學的單獨存在，或者是在宗教裡出現的哲學特質。
More generally speaking, it seems to me that religion and philosophy must be carefully distinguished. I have discussed this question frequently with Fernand Brunner, the late philosopher from Neuchâtel, with whom I was good friends. He attempted to bring religion and philosophy closer by giving religion a philosophical tonality, and philosophy a religious tonal-ity. For my part, I think— perhaps falsely—that the word religion should be used to designate a phenomenon that involves images, people, offer-ings, celebrations, and places that are devoted to God or to gods. This absolutely does not exist in philosophy. One might say, but then what do you do with the religion in spirit and in truth, with religion freed from sociological and ritualistic aspects and reduced to an exercise of the presence of God? I would respond, it is of the order of wisdom or philosophy.
我對這幾段有興趣，主要是因為我覺得上一本讀的書，好幾位哲學家都是神學家或者是虔誠的基督徒。某些程度上，哲學似乎跟神學緊緊綁在一起。但是Hadot在這裡漸漸把他認為屬於哲學範疇的部分劃分出來，對我來說，好像比較好理解哲學最為一種思考、追求真理（屬於個人的真理）的形式。
我自己讀來，是覺得Hadot認為一些儀式性的、社會性的層面，例如禮拜、聖餐，或是我們民間習俗裡的拜拜，這些屬於宗教、信仰方面的，但比較心理、精神層面，關於感受、想法、思考等等的，是屬於哲學的範疇。
我滿好奇Hadot的精神修練(spiritual exercise)跟前面Jasper提到的精神貴族(der spirituelle Adlige/ sp的內涵，兩者之間的異同。
My wife's books and the exchanges we had together revealed new aspects of the phenomenon that I was trying to understand. In 1977 this ultimately culminated in the opening article of the Annuaire de la Ve sec-tion, entitled "Exercices spirituels." This article was obviously supposed to provide a sample of what I was doing in my course. At the same time, however, I gradually developed the sense that what I had proposed in this article, to those who cannot or do not want to live according to a religious life, was the possibility of choosing a purely philosophical mode of life.
這一段就是寫給我的，因為我各方面來說，都不太算是虔誠的人，不屬於任何宗教/教派。但我滿喜歡想東想西，雖然大多數時候是無意義的overthinking。
不過我覺得讀哲學，就是無時不刻在想：「為什麼我要這麼做？」「為什麼我要讀這本書呢？」
有時候我覺得，就是，也不為什麼，就是我想。（為什麼一定要有一個目的或目標呢？）
以及想讀讀自己平常沒動力讀的書。我覺得參加這讀書會以來，是有種跳脫自己平常閱讀的舒適圈，因此可以接觸到一下能刺激、衝擊自己想法的內容。如果只讀自己知道的內容，感覺就只是強化了自己的立場，並沒有讓自己變得更加理解他人。
所以讀這種，不知道對方在說什麼的書，試著去理解，哪怕是多靠近一公分，過程也是滿有趣的，因為不知道後面是什麼，心情上充滿期待。我覺得讀不懂也沒關係，連被稱為哲學大師的Hadot，他讀尼采多年也還是沒把握完全讀透。所以，我覺得，反正就是盡力讀就可以了。
體制與競爭
後半段是Hadot在評論體制問題，讀起來有點訝異原來早些年法國的高層教育體制也是很靠人脈關係的，家長要很早就為孩子做安排，例如在53頁中間完整段的下半部：
從這一段好像看見了亞洲的父母普遍的心態，例如幫孩子選學區等等競爭，還有因此而生的「學區房」。讀這這邊，滿訝異原來歐洲也有這樣的現象。
回想自己小時候，就是讀離家最近的，升學什麼的也沒太管。家人忙工作沒空理我們，下課就把我們送去補習班。因為是鄉下，好像也沒什麼接送，就自己騎腳踏車。後來我就想說，反正也不會被發現，我就自己決定不去補習班，媽媽給我的補習費當自己的零用錢。
結果這事情，竟然過了一年半媽媽有天心血來潮，想說去接我下課，補習班老師才說：蛤？她一年多都沒來了阿。
哈哈哈哈哈哈，想來真是可貴的自由。（但我們也是長大了）
機運與偶然
54頁第二段
An election is often a matter of luck, of the fortuitous meeting between different interests and different politics. In the three elections I have spoken about, there is no proof that I was admitted for reasons of personal merit. I would be mistaken to take pride in it. The fact of having been elected to an institution, as prestigious as it may be, in no way proves that the one elected is prestigious. They often speak of elitist systems, of elitocracies, or of meritocracies. But is it really an elite that is chosen? Is the choice always a function of the competence, the intelligence, the moral value of the work? What are the real factors that contributed to the choice?
It is ultimately a set of coincidences: the birth, the fortune, the good high school, the ability, the luck (to have fallen on the question that one vas prepared to answer, or to have had a powerful sponsor, or to have been used as a bargaining chip in a negotiation). Are the famous contess that open careers and ensure the recruitment of state personnel often contests of circumstance and of luck?
不過不曉得是Hadot本人謙遜，他滿常提到自己的機運不錯。也許他是真的幸運，不像許多懷才不遇的人，Hadot幸運地在他的時代獲得了賞識，找到自己的位子，，甚至在沒有教師文憑或博士論文的狀況下獲得教職。但他並沒有忘記去反思這個制度的可靠及有效性，我覺得滿難得的。
我滿認同他談論到人生很多時候就是一連串的「偶然的結果」。像我到美國來工作，拿的是H1B的短期工作簽證。這是一個需要抽籤的簽證，有許多到美國留學的學生或者想辦理移名的人，不只是台灣人，是世界各地想留在美國的人，都在等抽H1B簽證。有時候即便再有才華、再有能力，抽不到簽證，沒有「身份」就是無法居留。
我其實本身是沒有美國夢，只是很單純地想要有個國外工作的經驗，當時很模糊地想也許東南亞也不錯，離家比較近。不過我就是「想」，並沒有很積極地實行。
後來我去面試了現在任職這家公司的專案經理職位，當時職缺是開在台北辦公室。當初去面試時，貪圖的就是薪水比我當時當館員高，又還是在圖書館領域，想說也許可以試一試。不過當時沒有面上這個機會。後來過了將近一年，公司有了個在美國的職缺，他們又想起我，問問我有沒有興趣，當時我沒有考慮太久，確認好家人的健康狀況後，我就答應了。
因為我們公司是非營利機構，所以不用跟著抽H1B，從我9月確認了offer，11月上班，12月中我就拿到簽證了。因為一切都還滿順利的，當時還想說希望簽證辦慢一點，可以多一點時間跟家人朋友聚聚。
後來我才發現原來H1B這麼難拿，網路上隨便都可以找到辛酸血淚史。相比大家這麼努力，我在這一點上確實可以說是滿幸運的。但想想我現在人在這兒，也是一連串的偶然，也是Hadot所說的「各種情形與偶然的選拔」。
好奇心、求知慾
後半段我唯一有畫線的地方，是55頁上半段的尾聲，Hadot引述Festigiere神父的話：
In 1961-62, in the summary of his courses provided in the Annuaire de la Ve Section of l'École Pratique des Hautes Études, Father Festugière in turn declared, "It is saddening that the French students are completely devoid of curiosity. One sinks into the emptiest of routines and watches disappear the essence of the humanities, which is to form minds." Have things really changed in this beginning of the twenty-first century?
我這邊滿有感觸的是，我覺得學習最難的地方，在於學習者本身是否有動機，這個動機也許是好奇心、求知慾等等，但必須是發自學習者內心的，而不是因為外在環境的推動。我有時候會想，其實每個小孩都是好奇的，人性本來就是好奇的，不過是在什麼時候人漸漸地磨損了這份好奇心呢。如果缺少了這種動力，感覺就是會比較輕易地跟隨潮流，而不一定是真正自己想要的，如果大家都追求一樣的東西，那不是大家都很像嗎？
