叔本华如何看待《傲慢与偏见》主角们？
介绍
至少在一个方面，奥斯汀的生活很像叔本华所描述的那样：”如果…无拘无束的闲暇和高超的智慧，恰好在同一个人身上，那就是一大幸事； 如果命运到目前为止是有利的，一个人就可以过上更高的生活，这种生活受到保护，免受人类苦难的两个相反来源：谋生的痛苦和闲暇的无聊…”
拥有叔本华所说的“财富”，奥斯汀创作了她关于爱情和婚姻的杰作《傲慢与偏见》。 但是，对于这个狭隘的话题，哲学家能说多少呢？
让我们先从奥斯汀的书中的一句话。 “骄傲更多地与我们对自己的看法有关；虚荣是对我们希望别人如何看待我们。” 再看看叔本华在《人生的智慧》中的评论：骄傲是对自己的直接欣赏。 虚荣是一种从外部间接获得这种欣赏的愿望。”
《人生的智慧》是关于“幸福学”的。 叔本华在 1851 年写了这本书，也就是奥斯汀于 1817 年去世 24 年后。我不假设这位哲学家读过或没读过奥斯汀的书。 但在更高的层面上，前者“点评”了后者代表作中的众多主角。 让我们看看其中的一些。
菲茨威廉·达西
他是故事中最富有的人。 根据一些分析，他在他那个时代是英格兰前 1% 的人之一。
他的骄傲可以从他对伊丽莎白（后来成为他的妻子）在由她的家人主持的舞会上说的话中体现出来：“在这样的社会中，以这种方式度过许多夜晚是多么令人难以忍受；这些人 无味, 喧闹； 虚无，啥都不是却自以为是”
叔本华认为人类的幸福来自三类：“一个人是什么 (人格、健康……），拥有什么，以及…在别人的评价中的地位…”。他认为其中第一个最重要，第二个次之，第三个可以忽略。
我想加上“origin”（起点）来涵盖人生中最重要的彩票。 “起点”的意义不言而喻。 比较一个在美国出生的孩子和一个在北朝鲜出生的孩子。
看来叔本华本人也支持我的补充。 “生来就有足够的生活依靠的人，通常具有一定程度的独立思想； 他习惯昂首挺胸； 他还没有学会乞丐的所有技巧； 也许他甚至有点自以为拥有才能，正如他应该知道的那样，这些才能永远无法与卑鄙的平庸相提并论。”
叔本华和奥斯汀恰好出身于小康家庭。 他们俩都不担心幸福的先决条件之一：起点。
罗素在《闲散的赞美》中评论道：“闲暇对于文明来说是必不可少的，……”
想象如果没有闲暇，奥斯汀、叔本华或罗素会对人类文明做出怎样的贡献？
伊丽莎白·班纳特
从表面上看，傲慢、虚荣、嫉妒是奥斯汀这本书的主线。 然而，冲突的根源要么是财产，要么是核心人物之间的净资产差异。
《傲慢与偏见》中的所有主角都是以收入为标志的，达西1万英镑，宾利5000英镑，班纳特2000英镑等等。这是一种深深植根于西方人最伟大思想中的哲学，无论是奥斯汀还是叔本华。 “生命、自由和财产是保障人类文明进步的三大要素，正如启蒙运动的主要人物约翰·洛克所写的自然法。 他们并不害羞地表现出来。
作为一个乡绅家庭的成员，伊丽莎白与达西相比被认为是穷人。但是当达西对她的小世界表现出鄙视时，她感到了骄傲和受伤，以至于她差点错过了婚姻。只有在和解之后，她才“充满期待地期待着他们离开社交圈子，这个社交圈子对两人都不太令人愉悦...”。在她的内心深处，她看不起她所处的圈子。她确实期待着通过与达西结婚，走向贵族生活。
不祥的是，叔本华对她摆脱社会地位的可能性并不乐观。 他评论说：“没有人可以超越自己的个性。 动物，无论处于何种环境，都处于自然不可逆转地赋予它的狭窄范围内； 因此，我们想让宠物快乐的努力必须始终保持在它的本性范围内，并限制在它能感觉到的范围内。 人也是如此； 他所能获得的幸福程度，是由他的个性预先决定的。 更特别的是精神力量，它一劳永逸地固定了他获得更高种类快乐的能力。”
我不确定每个人都能接受这种比较。 虽然不要指望别人跳出他的“个性”，但一个人有很大的提高是可能的。
夏洛特·卢卡斯
夏洛特既不富有也不漂亮。 我想，对于大多数读者来说，她并不是书中印象最深的那个。 然而，她有智慧。 不管别人的意见，她都会做出正确的决定。 柯林斯先生向她最好的朋友伊丽莎白求婚，但被拒绝了。 然后他立即转向夏洛特。 她毫不犹豫地接受了他，并幸福地结婚了。 她知道伊丽莎白和她的家人会做出强烈的负面反应。 她处理得很优雅。
这正是叔本华试图教导他人的观点：“因此，如果我们适当地将一个人的自身价值和对他自己的价值与他在他人眼中的价值进行比较，这将极大地促进我们的幸福。 前者之下是填补我们存在的范围并使其成为现实的一切，简而言之，所有已经在人格和财产的标题下考虑和总结的优势； 而这一切发生的领域就是人自己的意识。 另一方面，我们在他人眼里是他们的意识，而不是我们的意识；” 哲学家似乎在鼓励夏洛特：“只有在这样的幸运下，一个人才能说是生来自由，才能……成为自己时间和力量的主人，每天早上都能说，今天是我自己的。”
她对婚姻的决定不是偶然的，因为她的智慧可以从她对朋友的建议中看出。
对于简的婚姻，她对闺蜜伊丽莎白这样评价姐姐简面对心爱的追求者“如果一个女人隐瞒自己的感情……，她可能会失去固定他的机会； 到那时，相信世界同样处于黑暗之中将只是一种可怜的安慰。”的确，简的追求者宾利先生几乎相信简对他不感兴趣，因为她的矜持的态度。
尽管所有人都对达西先生看似傲慢的态度颇为苛刻，但她是唯一对达西宽容的人：“一个拥有家庭、财富、一切都对他有利的如此优秀的年轻人，会高度评价自己不足为奇。 如果我可以这样表达，他有权感到自豪。”
对于一般的婚姻，她颇有哲理：“婚姻幸福完全是机缘巧合。 如果双方的倾向彼此如此熟悉，或者事先如此相似，那丝毫也不会增加他们的幸福。 他们总是继续成长到足以与事后不同的程度，以至于有他们的烦恼； 最好尽可能少地了解与你共度一生的人的缺点。”
班纳特夫人
表面上，她表现得像个小丑。 然而，奥斯汀评论道：“为了她的家人，她实现了让这么多孩子成家的热切愿望，产生了如此令人愉快的效果，使她成为一个明智、和蔼可亲、见多识广的女人“
我怀疑班纳特夫人从不懂事到懂事的转变可能仅仅因为她的女儿们嫁得好，而且她经常与社会上流社会打交道。 叔本华说：“…每个人的一生都打上了相同性格的烙印，无论他的外在环境如何变化； 它就像一个主题的一系列变体。”
然而，她无时无刻不为女儿的婚姻着想。 她当然有传统的智慧，而不是虚荣心。
简·班纳特
正如叔本华所说，“美貌是一封公开的推荐信，让人心生好感。”
简很幸运得到了推荐，她最终嫁给了一个有钱的好男人宾利。 长得漂亮的人生活得更好，这对普通人来说似乎是不公平的。 好吧，现实和统计数据都表明，“漂亮者生存”。
维肯
奥斯汀笔下的威肯是个游手好闲的人、赌徒、欠债的人，一个诽谤他人的人。
叔本华这样描述这种类型：“让他成为最没有价值的流氓或最愚蠢的野兽，一个游手好闲者、赌徒、债务人，简而言之，一个无足轻重的人。 往往就是这种喜欢侮辱人的家伙……越是可鄙可笑的人，越是能开口说话。”
这种描述是如此准确，以至于人们可能会认为奥斯汀的作品是这位哲学家思想的源泉。
结语
考虑到奥斯汀从未结婚，她所创造的巧妙且富有创意的对话令人惊讶。
她出自一个富裕家庭，12岁开始写作，就像玛丽·雪莱一样，也是一个早熟的女孩，18岁时写下了她的第一部小说《弗兰肯斯坦》。这两本书都更注重内心思考而非情节，引发读者的推理。然而，更令人惊奇的是，奥斯汀对这个传统主题的精湛呈现引导人们进行哲学思考。
我碰巧知道一些读者，包括西方人、亚洲人、年轻人和老年人，都喜欢这本书。所有这些读者都碰巧是女性。也许这个观察带有些许偏见，无论是读者还是我自己。
（注：我先用英语写的书评，后用ChatGPT译成中文。有点拗口，但只改了译得太离谱的。）
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.
