呵呵, 你在说道德的问题...

呵呵, 你在说道德的问题...

文章来源: hummingboy 于 2006-03-22 22:57:31 给 hummingboy 发送悄悄话 登陆我的个人帐号
注: 最先的原帖飞了, 偶尔露露面. 只好开个新帖:
*******************************************************************************************************
原来的跟帖一:

回复：我看了以后也是这个感觉

文章来源: hummingboy 于 2006-03-22 08:35:21 给 hummingboy 发送悄悄话 登陆我的个人帐号

Can you say that 静秋 was not 认真 and 执著 when she dated her (now) husband? What made you think so? You don't like 婚外情 (I don't like it either), fine -- just don't do it yourself. But first, this 婚外情 was performed by the guy, not 静秋. Second, it seems to me that it was the guy who was the one actively "chasing" 静秋. As a passive person 静秋 was as we saw in her 初恋, I don't believe 静秋 had the intention of destroying the guy's marriage at the first place. And third, can you say, being dating a married man is not "认真 & 执著"? It seems to be the opposite: if she became really "认真 & 执著", the guy may become "认真" about their relationship and went ahead to divoce the first wife.

So what can you claim the 静秋辜负了老三?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原来的跟帖二:

回复：回复：我看了以后也是这个感觉

文章来源: 雁过无声 于 2006-03-22 10:56:28 给 雁过无声 发送悄悄话 登陆我的个人帐号A man who persue a woman outside of the marriage is a shame. A woman who, with full acknowledgement of the situation, accepts the so-called "love" from such a man, is also a shame! Marriage is holy, and everybody should respect. One of my favorate novel is "Jane Erye". Jane, after knowing that her Mr.Rochester is still in marriage, no matter how little this marriage sounds like a marriage, choose to repect it and ran away. This is the true beauty of true love!

Think it in this way, if Laoshan didn't die, and he married Jingqiu. After several years, he felt in love with an other woman, and persued her with all his heart, and hence there comes another love story called Love under Apple Tree. How will you feel? Will it be still Romantic to you?

=======================================================================================================

我的跟帖:

呵呵, 你在说道德的问题. 在下不想做大辩论, 仅仅陪聊一小会儿.

First of all, 你只做 statements, 不给论据, 这可不好. 例如你说 "Marriage is holy". 但为什么呢? 没说. 这听起来有点儿象那时候的一首歌: "无产阶级文化大革命, 嘿, 就是好, 就是好呀, 就是好, 就--是好!" -- 象吵架似的. (不过那歌后面还是给出了一些论据, 比你那强.)

假如现在有一个网友叫 "声无过雁" 的也做一个 counter statement: "Marriage is shit", 也不给论据. 于是你们俩就当街吵起来了:

"Marriage is holy!", "Marriage is shit!";
Marriage is holy, Marriage is shit! ...

得, 还挺有韵律的... 是不是有点儿象儿歌? 回头拿去教你孩子或邻居的孩子们唱去...

要不, 你俩变奏一下:

"Marriage is holy!", "Marriage is shit!";
"Holy!", "Shit!";
'Holy!', 'Shit!';
Holy!, Shit!;
Holy, Shit;
Holy Shit;
Holy Shit ...

这也成啊, 挺溜的嘛 (虽然是个脏话)... 还有点儿象小孩儿玩火车?...

同理可得, 你的那些别的 statements, 因为没有论据, 也跟吵架差不多.

OK, 言归正传. 正如许多人曾指出的, 道德是用来维护社会秩序的, 是会随着不同的历史时期而有不同标准的. "Jane Eyre" 是什么时代写成的? 1847年. 你以十九世纪的道德标准来要求二十世纪下半叶的人, 未免太过份了吧? Jane Eyre 那个时代的道德是要求人们无论如何要守住婚姻, 即使婚姻的最 "holy" 的基础 -- 爱情 -- 已经不存在了, 也不能轻易放弃 (当然那时候也有离婚的, 但那是极少数的, 也是不容易为社会所接受的). 当然, 那种要求也有其 positive 的一面: 那时绝大部份的妇女们在经济上是依附于男人的. 离婚对她们来说意味着失去生计. 所以离婚是不被社会所 blessed 甚至要被谴责的 (当然还有别的原因, 如维护社会安定, etc.). 时至二十世纪下半叶, 大多数妇女在经济上能独立或有相当程度的独立, 社会也通过法律等形式在相当的程度上保障离婚妇女们及她们的孩子们的生计(e.g. 赡养费, etc.). 因此离婚变得 practically 可行并为社会所接受. 而婚姻也在更大的程度上 depends on 感情(爱情) (当然还有孩子等因素). 这时再用十九世纪的道德标准来要求人们, 就不恰当了. 当然, 婚姻还是应该被尊重的(但不再是 "holy" 了), 因为那是对社会与家庭的承诺. 但是当真正 "holy" 的东西 -- 感情(爱情) -- 不存在时,这婚姻也就失去了存在的基础. 即使因为种种原因, 这婚姻还没有结束, 人们在这 broken 的婚姻以外寻找追求爱情, 也无可厚非 (人是爱情的动物嘛). 也更谈不上 "shame" 了.

另一方面, 不管因为啥原因, 没有爱的婚姻绝对与"真爱"拉不上关系. 因此, 当读到你所写的: "Jane, after knowing that her Mr.Rochester is still in marriage, no matter how little this marriage sounds like a marriage, choose to repect it and ran away. This is the true beauty of true love!" 呵呵, Mr."声无过雁" 可要说: "This is the ruin of true love!". 而我更要说: "This is the blasphemy of true love!" -- 因为这只是为了维护一个没有爱的婚姻而葬送了真爱.

如上所说, 道德是用来维护社会秩序的, 其与"爱", "romantic" 或者 "true beauty" 没什么必然联系. 有时候甚至是有矛盾的 (如 Jane Eyre 的例子). 在你所假设的"Love under Apple Tree" 的 case 里, 这故事是否 romantic, 不在于主人公是谁, 老三也好, 老四也好, 老一百都好, 而在于他(和她)的表现, 表现得 romantic, 就是 romantic. 与道德无关. 至于道德嘛, that's another issue 了.

不知不觉, 陪很久了. 下次再聊.

祝好!

P.S. 上面的儿歌和脏话都记住了吗? 要活学活用喔.

=======================================================================================================
回复：呵呵, 你在说道德的问题...

文章来源: 雁过无声 于 2006-03-23 06:59:49 给 雁过无声 发送悄悄话 登陆我的个人帐号
First of all, since I am at work now, I can't really spend much time replying.

According to you, the foundation of marriage is love. and your definition of love is the emotion that one can feel. I'll say, this is the exact formula for a failure marriage.

I agree, a marriage should start by two people feeling the emotional love towards each other. But that's not enough. Marriage is also a commitment. That's why, on marriage ceremony, people make vows like "I will love and cherish you, no matter rich or proverty, healthy or sick, until death do us apart". It is not just a romantic way of wording, it should be a serious promise. According to you, people should vow like this, "I will love and cherish you, until my heart tell me that I have no feelings for you any more." Sounds good? why don't you use that as your wedding vow?

I agree again, that the emotional love plays a very important role in a marriage. however, that can not all, not mentioning to be the foundation. Unless you live in a fairy land, no emotional love will last 24/7 for 100 years. There will be good times and bad times in every marriage. If anyone, in bad times, choose to divoice, I guess there will not be a single couple that are still in their original marriage.

Whether you agree or not, let me tell you. Love is a choice. When you felt in love with someone, and decide to go into marriage with him/her, you choice to love this person, unconditional, even when times that you don't feel like it. Marriage is not easy. It needs both party to work hard. Marriage is also beatiful, that only those that worked hard can see.

Hummingboy, I am not sure about your marraige status, but I really wish you can change your idea on marraige, and will have a happy marraige.

=======================================================================================================
哈哈，公说公有理婆说婆有理：）

文章来源: kimchee 于 2006-03-23 08:02:27 给 kimchee 发送悄悄话 登陆我的个人帐号
I like what 窈窕淑女司令 said:)


爱意是种化学物质，爱情其实不高尚 -


曾听人讲研究表明爱意实是种和性激素略有不同的化学物质，但这种化学物质对某一个人只释放有限的那么一段时间，属于过期作废那种。你可能一时狂热地爱某个人，但基本上是因为化学物质的驱动，等这种化学物质的作用过去了，爱情也就冷却下来了。这种爱即便不是荷尔蒙类型的，也还是种生理性的。所以唯物主义地说，因为只有新鲜刺激才能产生新的化学物质，这种爱情本身是不大会专一持久的，。


由此推断持久的爱情应该是心理性的，只有心理上对爱恋对象的依赖与需要才能维系婚恋关系的长久与稳定。所谓美好悠长的爱情只在几种条件下才能得以实现：


用道德观严格约束；

把对爱情与婚姻当作宗教来盲目膜拜；

夫妻之间建立一种象知心朋友一样的友谊


只要求悠长不要求美好难度就小多了，只需要利益上的相互需要，甚至一种习惯的的夥伴关系就行。全看你对爱情对婚姻有多高的要求了。


认真想了想，换情人/换老公是件挺累人的事，需要不少能量，可比换工作，搬家累人的多，而且还有不少危险和变数。除非您是位天生爱折腾，或一直向往某种想象中的爱情而不得，否则不换也罢。


由此可见对爱情的相信并不高尚，纯为自身需要，因为只有相信才能得以保持下去。爱情不象小说戏曲中描绘的那么美好，是种很自私的的东西，那种美好的爱情大多是短暂的，因为背后驱动它的化学物质总是不能延续很久的。当然这些都不是绝对的，凡事都有例外，所以例外的故事永远被我们千古唱颂，象梁祝象罗密欧朱丽叶。


严格地讲所谓的恋爱状态是种激素化学物质驱动的不正常的病态，恋爱中的人疯疯颠颠地作些非理智的失控事情。有黄舒俊:《恋爱症候群》为证，摘取一段，全歌见文章结尾

=======================================================================================================
回复：哈哈，公说公有理婆说婆有理：）

文章来源: hummingboy 于 2006-03-24 01:17:42 给 hummingboy 发送悄悄话 登陆我的个人帐号
难得有俩 JJ 相陪, 在下诚惶诚恐, 只得舍命陪娘子:

“and your definition of love is the emotion that one can feel...”

First of all, 不好意思, 俺并没有定义 love 为 "the emotion that one can feel". 俺翻来复去地重读俺的原帖, 可就是找不到那说法. 请指教. 愿闻其详. 假如您也找不到, 请自行删去贵帖中第二至第四段. 大家省点儿时间. 俺呼呼去了...

不过, on a second thought, 既然有美女相陪, 俺就多坐一会儿. 但又不想冷场, 俺就先开练一下. 要是劲儿太大, 弄痛了 JJ(s), 请多多包涵. (Hey, 那边那位, 做什么鬼脸? 别想歪了...)

不过想想也是, "the emotion that one can feel" 也确实是 *PART* of the definition of love. 别急别急, 容俺细说:

既然提到 definition, 俺不如就按黄颜 GG 所提议, define "爱情" 先:

IMHO, 爱情, 是指情侣, 爱人以及夫妻之间的相互吸引的感情或情绪(here is where "emothion" fits in).

在双方交往的初期, 爱情往往表现得很激动, 很高昂. 这就是爱的冲动. 要是双方相处得好并且客观条件允许的话, 这冲动往往导致婚姻.

结婚一段时期(可长可短, 每人不同)后, 这冲动便消退了. 即使两人没打架或冷战, 这冲动也会消退的(请参阅 kimchee JJ 的帖子).

爱的冲动消退了, 是否就应该结束婚姻了呢? 非也, 我们看到许多婚姻都 last 了很久. Why? 各位都很聪明 -- 因为有亲情 and/or 别的因素s在维系着那些婚姻. 先不谈那些别的因素s. 这"亲情"其实符合我上面关于爱情的定义, 因此也是一种"爱情". (有人把前述爱的冲动称为"爱情"而把这'亲情'称为"爱情的延续". 那也未尝不可. 不管哪种定义, 都承认"亲情"的存在.) 在我的前帖中, 我用的是"感情". 大同小异 -- 除'亲情'外, 这"感情"还包括了'朋友间的情谊', 更贴切 -- 因此我把它写成"感情(爱情)", 并且宣称那是婚姻的 "holy" 基础.

夫妻间若能发展出足够深厚的感情, 就能维护婚姻走过那些 "bad times" 而不至于 divorce.

诚然, 还有那些"别的因素s"也会帮助维持婚姻于不坠: 孩子, 金钱, 政治, 宗教, 暴力, 恐惧 (例见>), 怕麻烦/不保险 (例见 kimchee JJ 的帖), 社会伦理及风气, business, profession, etc., etc. 一个婚姻如果不是建基于感情, 而是这些"别的因素s"的话, 套句流行的话, 叫"维持会".

当然, 不管是建基于感情(爱情)也好, 靠别的什么因素s支撑着也好, 只要没有离婚, 就不算 break 了当初的 wedding vow , “雁过无声” JJ 就满意了, 这婚姻也就跟着 “holy” 了 (请稍安毋躁, 少安物燥… 呀, 起火了?!).

(别急, 别急, 请继续看下去.)

对于"维持会"里的俩主角, 您认为他们会 live happily ever after 吗? 除了孩子可能带来一点儿欢乐(也有可能是烦恼, 各家不同) 以外, 他们基本上没有享受到有感情(爱情)基础的夫妻所能享受的情爱, 相互关心和信任及其带来的家庭欢乐. 再加上柴米油盐之类的烦恼和(可能的)大大小小的争吵(又是各家不同), 日子过的并不舒心. 在这压抑人性的氛围中, 有人探出头来户吸一点儿新鲜空气就不稀奇了. 那就是我在上一帖中说的: “但是当真正 "holy" 的东西 -- 感情(爱情) -- 不存在时,这婚姻也就失去了存在的基础. 即使因为种种原因, 这婚姻还没有结束, 人们在这 broken 的婚姻以外寻找追求爱情, 也无可厚非 (人是爱情的动物嘛). 也更谈不上 "shame" 了.”

Yes, I agree, love is a choice. But it’s NOT a 卖身契. Wedding 也不是 point of no return. And yes, marriage is beautiful -- as long as you love each other (有感情). Sometimes, no matter how hard you work, how devoted you are, things just don’t work out (这种情况并不罕见). What can you do? Of course, you can always say, “Things don’t work out because you didn’t work hard enough”. This may be true for some cases, but not for all (remember, we are not God). For those who really try but still can’t work things out, this kind of statement is just some very un-considerate, inhuman and useless 风凉话. So for them, rather than tying them up in unhappy marriages, it’d better letting them go. That’s why the society allows divorce, especially the so-called “no-fault” divorce.

I thank you, 雁过无声 JJ, for reminding me. But don’t worry about me. I won’t change my idea about marriage unless you can convince me that I am wrong (yes, I am always willing to learn new things and change my ideas if they are proved to be wrong). Rather, I think you’d better re-think of your own marriage (especially your idea about it). I have no doubt that you are determined to work hard and keep your wedding vow. But just want to remind you that being too rigid on things sometimes messes up things faster.

To kimchee JJ: 请别忘了, 人体内所有的活动, 都需要有某些化学物质来促成. 如果因为这个原因而宣称 ”爱情其实不高尚”, 我不知道人世间还有十嘛东西是高尚的了 – 即使是宗教情感, 也是由某些化学物质来促成的. Can you say, that’s not 高尚?

“由此可见对爱情的相信并不高尚，纯为自身需要，因为只有相信才能得以保持下去。” – sounds very much like 宗教情感. Again, Can you say, that’s not 高尚?

“严格地讲所谓的恋爱状态是种激素化学物质驱动的不正常的病态…”

实在不能同意. 如果由某种激素化学物质驱动的过程就是不正常的病态, 那身体内所有的过程都是” 不正常的病态”. 这是所谓”泛科学”的毫无道理的论断, 是那些对科学一知半解(out of a billion)的人说的既亵渎科学, 又亵渎爱情的谬论. 与其相信它, 不如早点儿洗洗睡吧.

Take care!