TED英語演講：你要等到什麼時候做回真實的自己

社會越複雜，我們的表演屬性就越強;當下的你與真實的自己有多遠?本期演說者將從自身出發，富含感情地告訴大家掩藏真實的自己生活到底多危險。下面是小編為大家收集關於TED英語演講：你要等到什麼時候做回真實的自己，歡迎借鑑參考。

你要等到什麼時候做回真實的自己

Is there a real you? This might seem to you like a very odd question. Because, you might ask, how do we find the real you, how do you know what the real you is? And so forth.

真實的你存在嗎? 也許對你來說這是一個 奇怪的問題。 因為你可能會問， 我們怎麼尋找真實的自己， 而你又如何知道什麼才是 真實的自己呢? 諸如此類。

But the idea that there must be a real you, surely that's obvious. If there's anything real in the world, it's you. Well, I'm not quite sure. At least we have to understand a bit better what that means. Now certainly, I think there are lots of things in our culture around us which sort of reinforce the idea that for each one of us, we have a kind of a core, an essence. There is something about what it means to be you which defines you, and it's kind of permanent and unchanging. The most kind of crude way in which we have it, are things like horoscopes. You know, people are very wedded to these, le put them on their Facebook profile as though they are meaningul, you even know your Chinese horoscope as well. There are also more scientific versions of this, all sorts of ways of profiling personality type, such as the Myers-Briggs tests, for example. I don't know if you've done those. A lot of companies use these for recruitment. You answer a lot of questions, and this is supposed to reveal something about your core personality. And of course, the popular fascination with this is enormous. In magazines like this, you'll see, in the bottom left corner, they'll advertise in virtually every issue some kind of personality thing. And if you pick up one of those magazines, it's hard to resist, isn't it? Doing the test to find what is your learning style, what is your loving style, or what is your working style? Are you this kind of person or that?

不過一定存在一個真實的你， 這個想法顯然是成立的。如果這個世界存在什麼真實的事物，那就是你。不過，我其實沒那麼確定。 至少我們要對這個問題 理解的深入一些。 當然，我認為 我們周圍的文化中有很多東西 或多或少都強化了這樣一種想法， 那就是我們當中的每一個人 都具備一個核心，一種本質。 存在一些能夠定義你的東西， 使你成為你自己，它是永恆不變的。 其中有一些很不精確的方式， 比如星座，等等。 事實上人們對這些相當痴迷。 把它們放在臉書資料裡， 就好像這些東西很有意義似的， 你甚至還知道自己的生肖屬相。 還有更多具有科學性的版本， 各種各樣定義人格型別的方法， 比如像麥爾斯-布里格斯性格分類測試。 不知道你們有沒有做過這個。 很多公司把這種測試用在招聘中。 你要回答很多問題， 以此來揭示你的某些核心人格。當然，這些測試是相當流行的。 在這類的雜誌中，你可以看到 幾乎在每一刊的左下角， 都有這類性格測試的廣告。 一旦你拿起這種雜誌， 就很難抗拒，不是麼? 用這些測試來找出你的學習模式， 你的戀愛模式， 還有你的工作模式。 比如你是哪種型別的人?

So I think that we have a common-sense idea that there is a kind of core or essence of ourselves to be discovered. And that this is kind of a permanent truth about ourselves, something that's the same throughout life. Well, that's the idea I want to challenge. And I have to say now, I'll say it a bit later, but I'm not challenging this just because I'm weird, the challenge actually has a very, very long and distinguished history. Here's the common-sense idea. There is you. You are the individuals you are,and you have this kind of core. Now in your life, what happens is that you, of course, accumulate different experiences and so forth. So you have memories, and these memories help to create what you have desires, maybe for a cookie, maybe for something that we don't want to talk about at 11 o'clock in the morning in a school. You will have beliefs. This is a number plate from someone in America. I don't know whether this number plate, which says "messiah 1," indicates that the driver believes in the messiah, or that they are the messiah. Either way, they have beliefs about messiahs. We have knowledge. We have sensations and experiences as well. It's not just intellectual things. So this is kind of the common-sense model, I think, of what a person is. There is a person who has all the things that make up our life experiences.

我想我們有一個共識， 就是都認為自己有一種 有待發掘的核心特質。 有一種關乎我們自身的永恆真相，一生都不會改變。然而這正是我要挑戰的認知。我現在就得說，一會還會再講，我要挑戰這種認知並不是因為我這人很怪，事實上這個挑戰已經有一段 悠久顯赫的歷史了。最普遍的想法是，這是你。你是你這個個體，並且有這類的核心特徵。而在你的一生中，當然你會積累不同的經歷等等。於是你有了記憶， 這些記憶幫助你塑造了自己。你有慾望，也許只是想要一塊餅乾，也許是一些早晨十一點在學校 我們不想去討論的東西你還會有信仰， 這是一個美國人的車牌。我不知道這個車牌顯示的“彌賽亞 1” 是否表示這個司機相信救世主，或者他們自己就是救世主。 不管怎樣，他們信仰彌賽亞。我們有知識。 也有直覺和經歷。並不只有智力方面的東西。我想這就是一個有關“你是什麼”的 常識性模型。你是這麼一個人，擁有這些構成你人生經歷的事物。

But the suggestion I want to put to you today is that there's something fundamentally wrong with this model. And I can show you what's wrong with one click. Which is there isn't actually a "you" at the heart of all these experiences. Strange thought? Well, maybe not. What is there, then? Well, clearly there are memories, desires, intentions, sensations, and so forth. But what happens is these things exist, and they're kind of all integrated, they're overlapped, they're connected in various different 're connecting partly, and perhaps even mainly, because they all belong to one body and one brain. But there's also a narrative, a story we tell about ourselves, the experiences we have when we remember past things. We do things because of other things. So what we desire is partly a result of what we believe, and what we remember is also informing us what we know. And so really, there are all these things, like beliefs, desires,sensations, experiences, they're all related to each other, and that just is you. In some ways, it's a small difference from the common-sense understanding. In some ways, it's a massive one.

但今天我想提出的觀點卻是，這個模型具有根本性的錯誤。我可以很簡潔的給你們展示問題在哪裡。所有這些經歷的中心其實 並不存在那個真實的“你”。這個想法很奇怪嗎?不盡然。那這些經歷中究竟有些什麼呢? 顯然，有記憶、慾望、意願、直覺，等等諸如此類。但事實上這些事物是存在的，而且整合在一起，他們以各種各樣的方式相互交錯，彼此連線。 他們之間有部分連線，也許甚至是大部分連線，因為他們屬於同一個身體，同一個大腦。不過還有這樣一種敘述，關於自己的故事，那些在我們回憶過去時所獲得的經歷。 我們所做的事情都有其緣由。我們的慾望部分源於我們的信仰，我們的記憶也決定了我們的認知。的確，所有這些東西比如信仰，慾望，直覺和經歷， 他們都相互關聯， 這就構成了“你”。某種意義上， 這與我們的基本認知只有些微的不同。而某種意義上，這種偏差卻是巨大的。

It's the shift between thinking of yourself as a thing which has all the experiences of life, and thinking of yourself as simply that collection of all experiences in life. You are the sum of your parts. Now those parts are also physical parts, of course, brains, bodies and legs and things, but they aren't so important, actually. If you have a heart transplant,you're still the same person. If you have a memory transplant, are you the same person? If you have a belief transplant, would you be the same person? Now this idea,that what we are, the way to understand ourselves, is as not of some permanent being, which has experiences, but is kind of a collection of experiences, might strike you as kind of weird.

這是在把你自己當做 擁有所有這些人生經歷的事物，以及把你自己當做所有這些人生經歷的合集 之間的一種轉換。 你是所有部分的集合。 當然，這些也可以是身體的部分，比如大腦，軀幹，肢體等等，但事實上這些都不那麼重要。假設你做了心臟移植，你還是那個你。但如果你做了記憶移植，你還是那個你嗎?如果是信仰移植呢，你還是原來的你嗎?所以，這個關於我們是什麼 以及如何認識自身的想法，它認為我們不是什麼擁有經歷的永恆個體， 而是這些經歷的集合， 這種想法可能會讓你覺得有點兒奇怪。

But actually, I don't think it should be weird. In a way, it's common sense. Because I just invite you to think about, by comparison, think about pretty much anything else in the universe, maybe apart from the very most fundamental forces or powers. Let's take something like water. Now my science isn't very good. We might say something like water has two parts hydrogen and one parts oxygen, right? We all know that. I hope no one in this room thinks that what that means is there is a thing called water, and attached to it are hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and that's what water is. Of course we don't. We understand, very easily, very straightforwardly, that water is nothing more than the hydrogen and oxygen molecules suitably arranged. Everything else in the universe is the same. There's no mystery about my watch, for example. We say the watch has a face,and hands, and a mechanism and a battery, But what we really mean is, we don't think there is a thing called the watch to which we then attach all these bits. We understand very clearly that you get the parts of the watch, you put them together, and you create a watch. Now if everything else in the universe is like this, why are we different?

但事實上，我覺得一點都不。 某種程度上，這也是常識。 我請大家通過比較，想想宇宙中其它的諸多事物， 不用考慮那些最基本的力或者功。 舉個例子吧。 我的科學素養很一般。我們可以說水含有兩份氫 和一份氧，對吧?這個我們都知道。 希望這個屋子裡沒有人會理解為 有一種叫做水的東西，附著著氫原子和氧原子， 認為這就是水。 我們當然不會這麼想。 我們都能輕易而直接的理解，水不過是 氫和氧以恰當的形式排列而成的。 宇宙中的其他任何事物也一樣。 比如，我的手錶也沒有什麼神祕的。 我們說它有表面指標，還有機械裝置以及電池。 不過我們的真正意思 並不是認為一種叫做表的東西，上面附著上所有這些元件。我們很清楚 當你把所有這些元件組合起來，就可以得到一個手錶。 如果宇宙中所有事物都是這樣， 我們又有什麼特殊的呢?

Why think of ourselves as somehow not just being a collection of all our parts, but somehow being a separate, permanent entity which has those parts? Now this view is not particularly new, actually. It has quite a long lineage. You find it in Buddhism, you find it in 17th, 18th-century philosophy going through to the current day, people like Locke and Hume. But interestingly, it's also a view increasingly being heard reinforced by neuroscience. This is Paul Broks, he's a clinical neuropsychologist, and he says this: "We have a deep intuition that there is a core, an essence there, and it's hard to shake off,probably impossible to shake off, I suspect. But it's true that neuroscience shows that there is no centre in the brain where things do all come together." So when you look at the brain, and you look at how the brain makes possible a sense of self, you find that there isn't a central control spot in the brain. There is no kind of center where everything happens. There are lots of different processes in the brain, all of which operate, in a way,quite independently. But it's because of the way that they relate that we get this sense of self. The term I use in the book, I call it the ego trick. It's like a mechanical trick. It's not that we don't exist, it's just that the trick is to make us feel that inside of us is something more unified than is really there.

為什麼我們不把自己認為是 所有部件的組合， 而是一個擁有那些部件的 某種獨立而永恆的存在? 這種看法其實並不新鮮。 它已經有著一段很長的傳承。在佛教裡有， 十七，十八世紀的哲學裡有 直至現在，以洛克(譯註：17世紀英國哲學家) 和休謨(譯註：18 世紀蘇格蘭哲學家)為代表的思想。 但有趣的是，這也是一種 越來越經常聽到的被神經科學不斷加強的想法。這是保羅·布洛克斯， 一位臨床神經心理學家， 他是這樣說的： “我們有一種根深蒂固的直覺： 就是存在一種核心特質， 很難擺脫， 我甚至懷疑也許是根本無法擺脫的。 但神經科學的確顯示， 我們的大腦中沒有什麼讓 所有東西都集合在一起的中心區域。”那麼當你觀察大腦， 觀察大腦如何形成自我意識， 你會發現根本不存在什麼中心控制點。 不存在所有事件集中發生的區域。 大腦中有大量不同的程序， 各自以相當獨立的方式執行著。 但是，他們之間相互關聯的方式使得我們有了自我的意識。 我在書裡把它叫做自我迷局。就像機械迷局一樣。 這不是說我們不存在， 而是這個迷局使得我們感覺 在我們內部有一種更為統一的存在。

Now you might think this is a worrying idea. You might think that if it's true, that for each one of us there is no abiding core of self, no permanent essence, does that mean that really, the self is an illusion?Does it mean that we really don't exist? There is no real you. Well, a lot of people actually do use this talk of illusion and so forth. These are three psychologists, Thomas Metzinger, Bruce Hood, Susan Blackmore, a lot of these people do talk the language of illusion, the self is an illusion, it's a fiction. But I don't think this is a very helpful way of looking at it. Go back to the watch. The watch isn't an illusion,because there is nothing to the watch other than a collection of its parts. In the same way, we're not illusions either. The fact that we are, in some ways, just this very, very complex collection, ordered collection of things, does not mean we're not real. I can give you a very sort of rough metaphor for 's take something like a waterfall. These are the Iguazu Falls, in Argentina. Now if you take something like this, you can appreciate the fact that in lots of ways, there's nothing permanent about this. For one thing, it's always changing. The waters are always carving new channels. with changes and tides and the weather, some things dry up, new things are created. Of course the water that flows through the waterfall is different every single instance. But it doesn't mean that the Iguazu Falls are an illusion. It doesn't mean it's not real. What it means is we have to understand what it is as something which has a history, has certain things that keep it together, but it's a process, it's fluid, it's forever changing.

也許你會覺得這個想法讓人感到沮喪。 你也許會想，如果這是真的， 我們每個人都沒有持久的核心自我， 沒有永恆的實質， 這是否意味著自我是一種假象呢? 是否意味著我們並不存在? 沒有什麼真正的你。的確有很多人接納了這種假象之類的說法。 比如有三位心理學家， 托馬斯·梅辛革，布魯斯·胡德 以及蘇珊·布萊克默， 這些人都支援這種假象學說， 認為自我是一種假象，是虛構的。不過我不覺得這種理解方式 在這個問題上有任何的幫助。 我們回到手錶的例子。手錶不是假象， 因為除了部件的組合 沒有其它東西了。同樣的，我們也不是假象。 事實上，從某種角度來說， 我們只是一個 極其複雜的有序集合，並不意味著我們不是真實存在的。 我可以給你們一個非常粗淺的比喻。就拿瀑布來說吧。 這是阿根廷的伊瓜蘇瀑布。 如果仔細想想， 你就會領會到，從很多方面來看， 它都不是永恆的。 首先，它永遠在變化中。

Now that, I think, is a model for understanding ourselves, and I think it's a liberating model. Because if you think that you have this fixed, permanent essence, which is always the same, throughout your life, no matter what, in a sense you're kind of trapped. You're born with an essence, that's what you are until you die, if you believe in an afterlife,maybe you continue. But if you think of yourself as being, in a way, not a thing as such,but a kind of a process, something that is changing, then I think that's quite liberating. Because unlike the the waterfalls, we actually have the capacity to channel the direction of our development for ourselves to a certain degree. Now we've got to be careful here, right? If you watch the X-Factor too much, you might buy into this idea that we can all be whatever we want to 's not true. I've heard some fantastic musicians this morning, and I am very confident that I could in no way be as good as them. I could practice hard and maybe be good, but I don't have that really natural ability. There are limits to what we can achieve. There are limits to what we can make of ourselves. But nevertheless, we do have this capacity to, in a sense, shape ourselves. The true self, as it were then, is not something that is just there for you to discover, you don't sort of look into your soul and find your true self, What you are partly doing, at least, is actually creating your true self. And this, I think, is very, very significant, particularly at this stage of life you're at. You'll be aware of the fact how much of you changed over recent years. If you have any videos of yourself, three or four years ago, you probably feel embarrassed because you don't recognize yourself.

這些水總在沖蝕出新的路徑， 隨著潮汐和天氣的變化， 有的乾涸了，有的則剛剛形成。 當然，瀑布中流淌著的水 每一刻都是不同的。 但這並不是說伊瓜蘇瀑布就是假象。 並不是說它就是非真實的了。 這意味著，我們需要將它理解為是一種擁有過往的事物， 是某些東西的集合， 不過它是一個過程， 流動著的，始終變化著的。 我覺得這就是一個 可以用來認識我們自己的模型， 一個釋放性的模型。 因為如果你認為自己有什麼 固定的永恆的特質， 無論怎樣都終其一生而存在， 那麼在某種意義上你已經被套住了。 你生而具備某種特質，而它就會定義你，直到死亡， 如果你相信有來生， 也許還會繼續。 但如果你換種方式， 認為自己不是這樣一種事物， 而是一個過程， 一個處於變化中的過程， 我覺得這就是一種解放。 因為與瀑布不同， 我們其實在一定程度上具備 為自己的發展規劃方向的能力。 現在我們要小心了，對吧? 如果你看了太多“X 音素”(譯註：英國真人選秀節目)，你可能會深信 我們可能成為任何想成為的人。但事實並非如此。今早我聽到一些非常棒的音樂家的演奏，我非常確信我沒法達到他們的水平。 我可以刻苦練習，也許會做的不錯， 但我並不具備這個天賦。 我們可以實現的總是有限的。 在造就自我方面我們能力有限， 但無論如何，我們至少具備 在一定程度上塑造自己的能力。 真實的自己， 並不是等著你去發現的什麼東西， 你不是在靈魂中尋找那個真實的自己。 你或多或少正在做的， 其實是在創造真實的自己。 這一點我覺得非常重要， 尤其對於你所在的人生階段。 你會意識到這些年 自己變化了多少。 如果你有自己三四年前的視訊， 你也許會感到很尷尬， 因為你都快認不出自己了。

So I want to get that message over, that what we need to do is think about ourselves as things that we can shape, and channel and change. This is the Buddha,again: "Well-makers lead the water, fletchers bend the arrow, carpenters bend a log of wood, wise people fashion themselves." And that's the idea I want to leave you with, that your true self is not something that you will have to go searching for, as a mystery, and maybe never ever find. To the extent you have a true self, it's something that you in part discover, but in part create. and that, I think, is a liberating and exciting prospect. Thank you very much.

我希望能傳遞這樣的資訊， 我們需要做的 就是認為我們自己是可以塑造，規劃，並不斷改變的事物。佛說：“水人調船，弓匠調角，巧匠調木，智者調身。” 這正是我要傳達給你們的理念， 你無須尋找真實的自己， 也許這是個永遠無法解開的謎。 即便存在真實的自己，你也需要一邊發掘，一邊創造。這是一種自由釋放性的， 非常的令人振奮的觀點。謝謝大家。

《你要等到什麼時候做回真實的自己》觀後感

從小到大我沒想過對自己可以用虛偽一詞。我現在終於承認自己虛偽。我討厭虛偽，但又不得不虛偽。

真實的虛偽

對所謂的比賽嗤之以鼻，卻是如此的渴望。總認為自己很高尚，不為世俗所動容，可我錯了，錯得非常徹底。一副無所謂的嘴臉，一副不羈與世漠然的嘴臉，背後卻如此的平凡，如此渾濁。歌唱比賽，一班2個名額，自己內心極大渴望擁有其中一個。卻很不屑地對別人說“哎呀，我無所謂，無所謂，無所謂的拉。”其實真的是無所謂嗎?自己好虛偽，虛偽得讓自己感到前所未有的恐懼。不知道自己什麼時候學會了虛偽，什麼時候才能做回真實的自己?

不現實的虛偽

總想當個“冰美人”，用冷漠還偽裝自己。總告訴自己，只要冷漠，對何人，何事就都可以敬而遠之，置之不理。常對著牆一遍又一遍的練習，用硬邦邦的表情說話，語調沒有一絲波瀾。然而，我失敗了。見到人說話嘴角會不自覺地向上揚，眯起的眼角，深陷下去的一個酒窩也紛紛出賣了我。或許，天註定我當不了“冰美人”，不能用冷漠的外套套在自己身上。

何時才能卸下偽裝，做回真實自己?