没有哲学规划过的人生，不论是霍普金斯普林斯顿哈佛耶鲁又或者是其他常青藤名校，还是身家巨万，于任何人的一生毫无意义。这样的悲剧我早已知晓。我浅显的人生经历，也不过是徒劳验证一遍而已。名利。本枷锁沉重。世间障眼法，无出其右者。

举世而誉之而不加劝，举世而非之而不加沮。只有真正做到了这一点，才称得上是自由人。栩栩然蝴蝶，飘飘然梦境。天地内外，须臾一觉。

你懒吗？当然，我不会问你晚上几点睡，白天几点起。我是问，如果你的灵魂是你的爱人，你此生是否曾云淡风轻，曲径通幽，在当时明月，夜凉如水之妙，与她情意相通，心有灵犀，如人饮水、冷暖尽知？
你有过吗？碌碌一世，临了，你不会压根就没见过你的灵魂吗？

人的一生不是看呼吸了多少次，而是要看有多少个时刻无法呼吸。

不需要用心思量的事情都是根本不值得浪费生命的。喜欢做这种事情的人才是真正的懒惰者。根深蒂固的思想上的侏儒。枉其一生，难有半点自知之明。正所谓，可怜之人必有可恨之处。
迅哥儿哀其不幸，怒其不争。此间思之，唏嘘难免。

楼主勤快
～～～～～～蟹在剥我的壳，笔记本在写我，漫天的我落在枫叶上雪，
而你在想我…

作者简介：
　 　William Deresiewicz is a contributing writer for The Nation and a contributing editor at The New Republic. His next book, A Jane Austen Education, will be published next year by Penguin Press.
　　威廉·德莱塞维茨（William Deresiewicz）是《国家》杂志撰稿人和《新共和》杂志编辑。他的新书《简•奥斯汀教育》明年将由企鹅出版社出版。”
本文是威廉•德莱塞维茨（William Deresiewicz）在斯坦福大学的演讲，标题：勇气——挣脱身上的网。

兔兔酱以随性所见，试取副标题《初窥道径》

　　The question my title poses, of course, is the one that is classically aimed at humanities majors. What practical value could there possibly be in studying literature or art or philosophy? So you must be wondering why I'm bothering to raise it here, at Stanford, this renowned citadel of science and technology. Whatdoubt can there be that the world will offer you many opportunities to use your degree?
　　（学习文学、艺术或哲学能有什么用呢？所以你肯定纳闷，我为什么在在以科技堡垒而闻名的斯坦福提出这个问题呢？在大学学位给人带来众多机会的问题上还有什么可怀疑的吗？）

　　But that's not the question I'm asking. By 'do' I don't mean a job, and by 'that' I don't mean your major. We are more than our jobs, and education is more than a major. Education is more than college, more even than the totality of your formal schooling, from kindergarten through graduate school. By 'What are you going to do,' I mean, what kind of life are you going to lead? And by 'that,' I mean everything in your training, formal and informal, that has brought you to be sitting here today, and everything you're going to be doing for the rest of the time that you're in school.
　　（但那不是我提出的问题。这里的“做”并不是指工作，“那”并不是指你的专业。我们不仅仅是要个工作，教育不仅仅是学一门专业。教育也不仅仅是上大学，甚至也不仅是从幼儿园到研究生院的正规学校教育。我说的“你要做什么”的意思是你要过什么样的生活？我所说的“那”指的是你得到的正规或非正规的任何训练，那些把你送到这里来的东西，你在学校的剩余时间里将要做的任何事。）

　　We should start by talking about how you did, in fact, get here. You got here by getting very good at a certain set of skills. Your parents pushed you to excel from the time you were very young. They sent you to good schools, where the encouragement of your teachers and the example of your peers helped push you even harder. Your natural aptitudes were nurtured so that, in addition to excelling in all your subjects, you developed a number of specific interests that you cultivated with particular vigor. You did extracurricular activities, went to afterschool programs, took private lessons. You spent summers doing advanced courses at a local college or attending skill-specific camps and workshops. You worked hard, you paid attention, and you tried your very best. And so you got very good at math, or piano, or lacrosse, or, indeed, several things at once.

（我们不妨先来讨论你是如何考入斯坦福的吧。你能进入这所大学说明你在某些技能上非常出色。你的父母在你很小的时候就鼓励你追求卓越。他们送你到好学校，老师的鼓励和同伴的榜样激励你更努力地学习。除了在所有课程上都出类拔萃之外，你还注重修养的提高，充满热情地培养了一些特殊兴趣。你用几个暑假在本地大学里预习大学课程，或参加专门技能的夏令营或训练营。你学习刻苦、精力集中、全力以赴。所以，你在数学、钢琴、曲棍球等 众多方面都很出色。）

　　Now there's nothing wrong with mastering skills, with wanting to do your best and to be the best. What's wrong is what the system leaves out: which is to say, everything else. I don't mean that by choosing to excel in math, say, you are failing to develop your verbal abilities to their fullest extent, or that in addition to focusing on geology, you should also focus on political science, or that while you're learning the piano, you should also be working on the flute. It is the nature of specialization, after all, to be specialized. No, the problem with specialization is that it narrows your attention to the point where all you know about and all you want to know about, and, indeed, all you can know about, is your specialty.