echo是一位创作者，也是时常与我写信讨论思想与文学的朋友。
——
To：c.h
hey tesoro，最近怎么样？一切都顺利吗？你在学院的事都处理结束了吗？
之前我们约定一起看阿伦特的《平庸之恶：艾希曼在耶路撒冷》，你已经看过了吗？感觉怎么样？
在这本书里，阿伦特提到公共叙事的表演性，说到本古里安做为国家建筑师，他需要的不是对罪犯的裁决，而是要把抽象的民族创伤具象化成可被观众消费的符号。在这样的正义需要通过“剧场化”才成立时，审判本身是否已经成为一种娱乐？
在看到官僚系统连最基础的翻译配备都有所欠缺的时候，我认为所谓平庸的恶并不仅仅存在于加害者身上，也存在于自诩为正义的官僚主义上。
在那个著名的玻璃隔间里，艾希曼成为了一个标本，这种“平庸”让我产生了恐怖谷效应，它让我觉得，在高度分工的社会动力学结构里，一个人可以不需要任何仇恨，仅仅是“服从命令”和“追求职业晋升”就成为毁灭的起点。
我甚至想到了疫情时期被赋予了一定权利的某些社区工作人员，还有你曾经向我提起过的那段经历。当你处于心脏不适，且几乎快要无法呼吸的状态到达医院时，工作人员因为你仅仅昨天经过检测，而今天还没有而拒绝你进入医院，让你就在路边躺会儿时，你是否也感受到过“平庸”带来的恶？当他们说“这是规定”的时候，你在想什么？
如果古代的恶是火，充满激情的残暴，那么现代的恶也许更像冰，冰冷的行政效率。科技没有让人性变好或变坏，只是延伸了“平庸”的破坏力。
本古里安想把审判当成教科书，用来教导年轻人、凝聚民族。上次我们聊过的书，关于福柯的理论里，也谈到过类似的思想：通过审判、通过公众的述罪，来实现权力的展现，它要求人们于公共空间展现自己的错误，本身就是权力的收束。聆听“认错”的权力感极其隐晦，并且给人以诚恳的错觉。他把受害者重塑为主权英雄，将人们划分为对立的旧时代羔羊、新时代以色列战士。
这种叙事像一种霸凌，生存对历史的霸凌。为了建立一个强有力的国家身份，不惜制造“受害者有罪论”的假象。但这种“走向死亡的恭顺”，正好是极权主义实验室的成功实验：通过彻底摧毁人的“个体性”，让人在肉体死亡前先经历“精神丧尸化”。
当看到卢塞特说“党卫队的胜利要求受害者允许自己被引导着走上绞刑架而不会抗议” 时，我感到了无比的荒谬与警示。那么本古里安在法庭上追问“你为什么不反抗”时，算不算一种更隐蔽、更表面文明化的绞杀？
你的感受是什么？祝你都好。
echo
to：echo
hi，我最近有些忙，去了一些城市旅游，学院的事也差不多处理好啦。很高兴收到你的来信！
我认同你说的部分。
在一个权力绝对不对等、信息完全被屏蔽、感官被极端恐惧剥夺的环境里，我认为书里所展现的，本古里安所希望的那种“英雄主义抵抗”只是一种事后站在道德高地的幸存者偏差。
如果说艾希曼是因为“不思考”而作恶，那么那些在极端压力下选择“顺从”以求生存的人，是否也被强行剥夺了“思考”的权利？但是在想这个问题的时候，我觉得人无法被剥夺思考的权利，对于我本人来说，我更注重个人的主动性，虽然这有时候会过于放大人的意志作用，所以我也保留意见。
如果站在绞刑架上，接受处决本身也是思考权衡后的结果。在那一刻，人依然在思考，然后选择交出自己的意志，这本身就是思考。
因为事后追问那些问题，首先就假定了一些前提。比如说，假定行为上的对抗才是“反抗”，而不把绞刑架上的人在决定交出生命时的内心博弈也视作反抗。
文明具有短视性，历史记录了向量，却无法记录标量，将“不作为”等同于“不思考”，是否只是人类的傲慢？不过这样的看法有些斯多葛学派的意味。
在之前你提到了“文明的剧场化”，我想是因为“国家”这种文明形态，极其依赖“符号”和“动作”来呈现。个体需要“符号互动”，扩大到国家依然是等同的。
我们的教育与一些观念，必须依赖一致性、凝聚性，我们需要共同的敌人、共同的荣耀来抵抗人心本就飘散的底色，所以我们需要人为制造“共识”，或者说常识，这些常识让我们在面对同一个议题时能精准快速地辨别“敌我”。这样一来，既产生了归属，又提供了“正确”和共处的沃土，还能顺应大脑天然的惰性。何况是对于以色列这样的新生政权，它需要马加比式的英雄，需要足够被写进教科书的热血。
但这样的权力无法处理内心，人心不可见。如果一个人只是心里默想、心里选择有尊严的死法，这种能量是没有办法被国家层面的叙事回收利用的。它无法成为话题、无法调动情绪，它是无效的。
那么这种静默，最后的作用就是被贬低成为“羔羊式的不作为”，以此反衬主权权力赋予的“新身份”多宝贵。
其次，显然，站在绞刑架上恐惧到麻木的人不是审判席上问问题的人。
但此时，我突然又有了一个更激进的想法：如果选择不反抗也是一种思考，那我们要如何重新定义“平庸的恶”？
如果行为上的“顺从”可以作为一种思考后的策略，那么这种“内心的反抗”真的足够维持一个文明的尊严？还是说，文明依然需要不计代价、不经权衡的碰撞？
所以按照我这样说，艾希曼也许也是思考后的权衡，他思考了这样做带来更大的利益，比如说恭顺的名声和听话的公民。那与当时我在医院门口经历的事如出一辙，护士害怕承担行政上的后果，选择来承担“生命”上的悔恨成本。
因为我当时状态确实很不好，已经到了必须要不断深呼吸来维持的状态，并且几乎无法看清眼前、无法站立，只能蹲下或者原地坐下。在这样的情况下，护士依然选择拒绝我就医，因为没有24小时的核酸结果，当时真的挺恨的。
如果我最终没有缓过来，她承担的便是另一种后果，而显然她清楚这种后果，而她当下做出了选择。
我其实更倾向于把这种内心的思考斗争加上一个底线，即人类生命的尊严的共识，也就是人类意味着什么。一套最后的统一言语，即不可被剥夺的人类生命的权利、求真的权利。在这样的底线上，仅仅内心的反抗是不足够的，为了守护这套语言，人类需要不计代价的碰撞，虽然我不认为“活着”必须被证明，因为它本身就存在，但“人”这个物种，需要被证明。
否则，现代文明会不会制造一种新的玻璃隔间？我们是不是也在用各种政治正确或宏大叙事，去覆盖那些最隐秘、最复杂的人的苦痛，从而让历史再次变成一场表演秀？
祝安。
c.h
to：c.h
谢谢你在旅途里愿意抽出时间寄信，我们继续吧。
艾希曼的权衡，是思考还是计算？
计算是如何更好地执行命令、获得升迁、在官僚中表现得体。我看过你之前的文章，我认为这是你所说的“工具理性”，也就是中立智力，它追求达到目的的手段，却不追问如何达到、出发点的善恶。
阿伦特在书里说，“思考”需要和自己的灵魂对话。如果你要思考“人类意味着什么”，其实这之间有不可调和的裂隙。
如果艾希曼只是为了利益权衡，其实他已经失去底线，因为把利弊置于人的尊严之上。当他在“思考”这件事时，他已经失去文明的庇护。
你认为，仅仅“想”是不够的，必须有“撞”。就像物理学中，一个粒子不与其他物体发生碰撞，它在物理意义上就是不存在的。如果人在面对灭绝时，不产生物理上的、可见的反抗，那么在历史看来，这段历史里就没有“人”，只有一群“有机零件”被搬运到了另一处。但可笑的是，人类一直在追寻这样的“阿基米德点”，以此来剥夺自己“人”的身份。
这里的悖论在于：为了证明“人”这个物种的尊严，往往需要牺牲具体的、活生生的“个人”。本古里安在问“为什么不反抗”时，已经是站在“种群进化”的高度，嫌弃受害者没能为“犹太人”这个物种提供足够的英雄主义样本。
在他们的会议结论中，要求自己的民族牺牲小部分人，成全更多人。
你的观点让我觉得不太理解。如果“内心的反抗是不够的”，这就对我们提出了非常高的道德要求：我们要成为底线的看守者，甚至是殉道者。
那么我想听听你的看法：
谁有权定义那条“最后的底线”？
如果由国家来定义，反抗就可能会成为政治宣传的工具。如果由个人来定义，在那一刻大多数人可能会选择“活着”作为底线。
如果这条底线是“求真的权利”。那么当一个父亲为了保全孩子的性命，不得不对纳粹撒谎、甚至协助指认邻居时，他是在行使“活着的权利”，还是在破坏“求真的底线”？
所以在那种极端的、被剥夺了所有选择权的时刻，不计代价的碰撞会不会沦为一种只有圣人才能完成的任务？而如果一个文明要求它的成员必须是“圣人”才能被证明是“人”，这个文明本身是不是也陷入了另一种形式的“平庸之恶”？
baccio
echo
to：echo
天啦，这真是近期我收到的最难以回答的问题了，我没办法回答你这个问题，我认真想了下，我真的宕机。只能从另外的角度来看似回答实则逃避一下了。
个体和群体并不是完全兼容的。如果这些问题都有了完美的标准答案，人类可能早就进化成蚂蚁一样高度协作、毫无冲突的超级物种了，当然也就没有所谓的“文明”了。
那就换个角度来想吧。或许正是因为个人与群体之间永不完全兼容的冲突，我们才产生了悲剧、法律、艺术和哲学。
“底线”确实很难定义。在漫长的历史中，谁拥有话语权，谁就在定义底线。它可能不由国家定义，也不完全由个人说了算，可能是“把人当人，而不是工具”。
你说到“圣人”，我很同意。一个文明如果只允许圣人存在，这已经是一种恐怖主义。那个想保护孩子的父亲，他并不需要通过成为英雄或者变成魔鬼也能活下来。
人类不需要只有非善即恶，不是只有英雄与魔鬼两种选择，不然我们就可以直接命名为“英雄”或“恶魔”，而不是“人类”，你觉得呢？
c.h
to：c.h
抱歉回复很晚，最近遇到了一些麻烦的事，时间不多。
我深有感触。
我把“平庸的恶”腾挪在如今，今天的压迫已经从“暴力”演变成了“算法”。
如果艾希曼活在今天，他可能是一个坐在电脑前优化一行能让人上瘾、丧失思考能力的“向你推荐”。
因为家人沉迷于这样的境地，所以我最近总是在想这件事。
回到你之前说到的地方。
我认为“无法回答”也是作为人类很迷人的一点吧？如果一切都可以被精确计算和回答，那我们就真的成了艾希曼口中的“零件”。
正是因为有人选择沉默地权衡，有人选择不计代价地碰撞，而我们还在为这些选择纠结和讨论，这就已经证明了“人”这个物种依然存在。
历史不只关于“胜者”和“正确”，也关于每个感到无法回答，但还是尝试去理解的深挖。
所以如果有一天，我们真的发明了一个“完美正义”的 AI法官，它能看透每个人的内心博弈，能精准补偿所有的幸存者偏差，能给每一个“平庸之恶”定出绝对公平的罪行。人类是终于迎来了“文明的终点”，还是失去了某种让我们作为“人”的挫败感？
echo
to：echo
希望你一切都好。我最近也很忙，要处理的事很多，还有一些地方在路上。放缓我们的节奏，没关系。
关于你的问题，我在看到的瞬间就知道了回答。
人类终其一生都在寻求一种意义，当然无意义也是意义的一种，而这种意义势必是有所经历。
你知道，我在构思我的下篇小说，虽然进度及其缓慢，但我的大纲里有一段对话，或许能回答这个问题：
“那些喝下高浓度深蓝胺的人，他们拥有了神的视角。”
“然后呢？他们成神了吗？”
“不。他们在看清万物规律的那个瞬间，都选择了自杀。”
“为什么？”
“因为在绝对的理性里，‘生存’本身是毫无意义的消耗。只有死亡是永恒的平静，是最优解。绝对的清醒是一剂毒药。那个能拯救我们的，却是明知不可为而为之的执拗，是对未知的贪婪，对他人命运、对必死的结局视而不见的盲目，是你走着走着就笑出来的荒谬。是这些东西，让人在悬崖边不是跳下去，而是试图长出翅膀，去飞、去爱、去体验。这些东西让我们没法像机器一样安静地去死，只能狼狈地、痛苦地……挣扎着活下去。”
祝好。
c.h
to：c.h
我想到了生物演化中一些有意思的悖论。如果人类在百万年前就拥有了预见消亡的绝对理性，可能我们都不会走出洞穴去寻找火种。文明的建立好像真的只是一种“认知残缺”，因为不知道明天会不会饿死，就学会耕作和囤积；不知道爱人是不是会背叛，发明了誓言和契约。
如果没有这种错误，“人”可能真的只是一个观众，而不再是自己的参与者。但是人一旦变成自己生活的观众，那个导致“自杀”的瞬间就来了，因为观众不需要活着，只需要观察。
回到我们的书里来。当时在看巧克力工厂那一段的时候，我觉得很荒唐，因为他们曾都是杀人机器，在战争结束后，却连名字都不屑于改，直接重新开始生活，德国民众并不是不知道他们是谁，但他们居然不介意？
这种不介意，是一种比艾希曼的盲从更深层的平庸。
这其实让我想到青少年时期身边的一些朋友。你知道的，那个年龄的男男女女总是谈恋爱，也总是分分合合，关系网复杂交错，而总有一些人的情感不受控。
让我感到吃惊的是，在一个道德上有瑕疵的人，竟然也会得到拥护，理由竟然是：ta是我的朋友，即便ta出轨，即便他品德不佳，做了什么坏事，我们还是朋友，他虽然对异性足够恶，但对朋友还是不错的。
这是一个恐怖的真相。什么时候，人连美德都丢弃了。
一个人的内部道德审查如果已经失灵，它就只能依靠外部压力来扮演它的良心。当然这对于一个民族而言也是同样的，德国人似乎并不觉得那些凶手有罪，只是如果不惩罚他们，国际社会会变得很棘手。
看到这里的时候，我想到你说的深蓝胺，感觉是一种逆向证明。
那些德国法官和民众，他们并没有喝下深蓝胺，也没有看透万物的规律，他们要的是一种局部的清醒：我只要管好我的巧克力工厂，我只要管我的药剂店，只要我的朋友没有犯法，他伤害了谁说明不了什么。
局部清醒，导致整体的盲目。
但你说“明知不可为而为之的执拗”，其实我也在思考，因为你看那些杀人犯余孽，他们也在“执拗”地活着，执拗地在审判席上撒谎，执拗地维持听话公民的表象。
如果“挣扎着活下去”是人的本能，那当这种本能处于一个“恶的环境”里时，它究竟算什么呢？
这本书里，我觉得阿伦特记录的那个社会里的人，其实每个人都算是在“挣扎着”活下去吧？但这种挣扎好像也没有证明“人”这个物种的尊严，反而证明了人类在遗忘和妥协方面多么天赋异禀。
如果“执拗地活着”变成了“执拗地遗忘”，那什么才是最后的底线呢？“理性”和“肉体续存”是互斥的吗？你要怎么开始你的小说呢？
baccio
echo
to：echo
你说这个，其实也是我在想的问题，也是我迟迟没办法开始写这篇小说的理由，因为里面还有很多东西我感觉我自己也没有厘清，但好在上帝依然在帮我，他正在让我经历一场动荡，而在这场动荡里，这些问题和答案都在浮现，我觉得我需要更深的体会才能给出更深刻的答案。我说我最近一直在一个人旅游，也是出于这样的原因，我想一个人去看看更广阔的世界，接触更多人和风景。
我不知道怎么开始我的小说，甚至还没想好它们是否互斥。
但我觉得，我们之所以还活着，是因为我们还不够清醒吧。
我这段时间去了一些乡村小镇、大城市、海滨，还有一些艺术家生活过的地方，我有时候会坐在乡村田野里一整天，我会想：当年梵高就是在这里，从这个角度看那边，他看到了什么呢？
茨威格最后在这里和他的妻子服毒自杀，他们在想什么呢？
冉阿让经过的教堂，还有他们路过的巴黎、过夜的酒店，喧闹的剧厅，有没有也从这里的空气得到一丝灵感？
“人”是在悬崖边试图长出翅膀的物种，不过在当时的阿伦特眼里，“执拗”是另一面，比如本古里安执拗地要完成一场民族叙事的表演；纳粹执拗地躲在巧克力工厂；德国民众则执拗的认为，只要舆论不加害，邻居是不是凶手不重要。
也许那种“拯救我们的盲目”，本身就是在不同容器里开出的不同的花？
那我依然坚持我之前认为的，如果失去了人类生命尊严的底线，“执拗”也只是一种生存的贪婪。
至于阿伦特的书，我现在看到了第三章。
进度缓慢，接下来一段时间我要去海上一段时间，当然也是为了小说，如可能会回复慢一些。
刚好看到艾希曼通过整合财政、警察、税务这些问题，为了提高处理人的效率。
其实给我感觉就是，为了提高效率，人被简化成了一张张纸，这样一来，有权力的人就不再能感受到“杀人”的负担，只是在感受优化流程的快感。
这与我们现在的社会是如出一辙的。当我们那么执着追求效率、kpi、转化率，这对打工人的碾压其实是无感且高效的。谁会注意自己在经历什么？而就算在经历，又怎么样呢？
当我么专注于这样的组织协调、流程优化的时候，算不算一定程度上都在某个微小范围内成为艾希曼？
程序员在优化一个“猜你认识”的算法推荐的时候，是否也会像艾希曼一样，沉浸在“解决了一个技术难题”的喜悦中？
特意点出这个是因为，我极其不爱过多查看社交软件或者什么平台，前两天偶然打开，被“推荐”扑面而来的窒息感给齁住了，哪怕是关闭，也只是关闭相关性，我觉得是一种劫匪行为，他们要的就是你无限点进可能认识的人，去看朋友，或者朋友的朋友。
另外一点是艾希曼关于“失语症”的部分，他只能说“官方语言”，这不是词汇量的问题，这是思维能力的丧失问题。
无法说出不是套话的句子，语言的匮乏会直接导致思维的匮乏。当所有人都在说同一套词汇，所谓的职场黑话，“赋能”“颗粒度”“抓手”“对齐”等等。是否也成了人们逃避直视真相的党八股？
为了高效对接吗？
其实我不这么认为。
阿伦特觉得现在社会的平庸之恶是以“智力上残缺”，“修辞上自我感动”为载体。被语言包装成了一个平庸样本。
当整个文明都在进行一套语言交流时，比如“为全人类”“为更高的利益”“要深入群众”这类宏大口号，真相去了哪里？
暂且不说这些宏大标语的逻辑错误，比如：全人类指的是什么？当我在这里质疑权力者的口号并对他们产生威胁时，我还算不算全人类的一员？那么更高的利益是什么？低的利益又是什么？每个人都有不同的理解对吧？那如果产生冲突，谁拥有解释权？至于深入群众，多深入算深入？群众指的又是？一千个人算群众吗？那十个人呢？
真相是会塌陷的深坑，为了维持现代城市的平稳运行，人们需要平庸地过滤那些违背逻辑的建设。权力者，或者权力者的传话者，都不再需要思考，只需要不断更新他们的套话，或者用上自认为的“官话”，那些上级说过的话，就自然而然完成了一次语义避险。这样集体共谋的愚蠢，比纯粹的恶更难反抗。
甚至，可以让人们感到一种道德的升华。
语义自欺……忽然想到这个词，我在想能不能作为下篇小说中的一部分，但好像有点搞复杂了。
啊，就先这样吧。
c.h
to：c.h
抱歉这半个月一直在忙，信件也搁置了半个月没有回复，现在是凌晨2点，终于有时间写点东西了。
我差不多读到最终解决那个部分，你说到语义自欺，刚好看这部分的时候谈到类似的话题。
当一个文明决定自毁时，它首先做的是修改自己的“底层协议”和“语言包”。
语言似乎成了文明的遮羞布，给语言锚定一个规则，这个规则也束缚人们的思想。比如在纳粹的语义里，“杀戮”说成“特殊对待”，“大屠杀”说成“最终解决”。
这种语言功能保护了执行者的理智。它让艾希曼们在处理成千上万人的死亡时，大脑感知的不是血腥，只是一串数据。
这很像是我们今天“政治正确”或“职场术语”。词语不再指向真实，嗯其实我很不理解比如用“灵活就业”代替“失业”，用“负增长”代替“衰退”这类语义。人类就像进入了一个语义隔离区。在这里，任何暴行都可以通过重新定义词语而获得行政上的正确性。
这其中还有一个我无法容忍的地方在于，语义的对换，会把公众的视野从一个领域转向另一个领域。
比如希特勒把“屠杀”替换为“给予关怀性死亡”时，他就已经把一个法律问题转化为了一个医疗问题。公众的注意力重心成功移走了，并且很少有人觉得有什么不对。可实际上，领域转变后，人们思考的地基也就变了，到最后，得出的结论跟最开始的东西没有一点关系，也许政府解决了那样东西，实际上只是解决了一个衍生的影子，而人们却觉得：问题解决了，高层是有在做事的。
再者是希姆莱的语言定义，通过“超人主义”的修辞，把杀人者的心理痛苦转化为一种职业荣誉感：“看，我为了执行任务，承受了那么巨大的心理折磨，我真是太伟大了！”
这跟语义偏移发生的是同一件事，道德在这里被镜像反转了。因为在正常文明中，良知是阻止杀人的；在纳粹文明中，良知成了督促人们完成杀人任务、克服软弱同情心的动力。
然后就是万湖会议。
我之前看过你关于“自我外包”那篇文章，我觉得这里也很类似。
良知的众筹式外包。好像每个人都只需要付出一点点良知，最后所有人都觉得自己是清白的。
他们通过筛选来决定哪一部分人可以被证明，哪一部分值得被牺牲。这本身就是纳粹设计的囚徒困境，当受害者开始用加害者的逻辑进行自我管理，文明的底线就彻底消失了。
因为既然作为“人”需要被证明，证明谁更有用，这本身就是精英主义的陷阱。“证明”的标准是什么？智商吗？成就？还是说仅仅只是作为“人”而存在？
这些人极端的功利主义，人的生命只是无意义的耗能，当一个文明还是权衡谁比谁更有资格活着时，它已经站在了“最终解决”的入口。对于个人而言也是。
并且在事后，他们不认为自己杀人了，只是觉得“我为了执行这个任务，承受了很大的心理负担”，语义一变，罪恶就变成了负重前行的圣徒，获得了一种超人般的虚荣。
一场……集体的狂欢。
晚安。
echo
to：echo
嗨，很高兴又收到你的来信，正巧这半个月我也马不停蹄地在外面旅游，去了三个城市，看到很多不同的生活方式，也给了我很多启发。另外，我找到了一些小城市，希望你去中国的时候我能带你去玩。
看你的文字，我总是会联想到一些现实处境，可能是由于我刚刚也正在想这些事。
我在地铁上，火车上，看到每个人都埋头看手机，不然就是戴着耳机听音乐（是的这两件事在我看来是等同的），我想到现在的互联网活着大型机构中，一个决策如果是由很多很多小齿轮共同推动，就像一个决策可能导致社会动荡，或者大规模裁员，或者像现在的房价骤降。是不是也只是在经历一种“万湖会议式的行政快感”？
每个人都觉得自己只是在技术对齐，于是每个人都感受到了那种彼拉多式的解脱。
还是我上次说到的“算法推荐”的问题，我很烦这些东西，所以这段时间陆陆续续注销了大部分的社交平台账号，关闭了私人推荐，只留下了个人网站这种无互动无即时反馈的，低剂量多巴胺激发平台。
试图通过“卷”来赢别人，通过展示自己的独特价值来避免被抛弃的时候，其实人们已经在无意中执行筛选逻辑，就像之前我的文章写作，现代社会要求人们展示，因为你展示你就可以被预测。
另外你提到的，他们通过筛选来决定哪一部分人可以被证明，哪一部分值得被牺牲。
有意思的是，上本小说里我恰好写到了类似的剧情话题，我收到一些有趣的评论，随附件发送给你，可以谈谈你的感受，如果你有兴趣。我没有办法对评论做出评价，因为作为作者的立场过于顽固，里面存在一丝情绪都会让我觉得自己有失公允，或者倾斜。一起来看看吧。
c.h
to：c.h
节日快乐，不知不觉这本书我们竟然聊了两个月了。
我断断续续看了你的文章，也看了一些评论，我理解你那种无法对评论做出评价的感受，而且我并不觉得那很有趣。
唯一有趣的点在于，在那个时候你就已经提到了“艾希曼”，艾希曼与你笔下的加纳尔的逻辑是类似的，把一个巨大的罪恶，分成无数个小步骤。
就像科学家们说：我只是在解决融合的成功率的问题。
财务官说：我只是优化资源分配。
宣传官说：我只是在维护社会稳定。
当平庸的恶被分成足够小的时候，每一个螺丝都觉得自己只是在做正确的事，身处其中的人们不会觉得自己在面对一个巨大的恶，只觉得自己在面对一个微小的技术指标，在这个指标下心安理得地按下按钮。
实实在在发生的历史，和艾希曼审判，已经是最好的佐证。
加纳尔用“生存是最高伦理”这种话，直接杀死所有个体的存在，我觉得这是一种非常阴险的垄断，包括他说人们连“权利这两个字是什么意思都无法独立说明”，不仅剥夺权利，还要剥夺人们描述“权利”的权利。
一方面是这样自大的恶，一方面也是对大众无知平庸的嘲讽。
读者认为科学家和掌权者应该有良知，但历史说明，科学家和掌权者追求的是真理闭环和解决问题。
万湖会议里的精英们，发现了一个能证明自己“才华”的伟大项目，你的小说里，用天花疫苗和心脏移植作类比，他们把异形融合看作一个待攻克的技术高峰。
至于平民们，当一个人长期生活在“牺牲小我成全大我”的教育中，那种受害者自豪像养分，他们会觉得自己的牺牲是伟大的，从而攻击“自私想要保全个人权利”的人。
这种感慨在我看到一些评论的时候，更感到无奈。我理解你觉得有趣的点，因为你总像一个观察者，去观察这个社会的形形色色。
我觉得这是一种现代文明的虚伪，因为现在我们已经生活在秩序里，这种秩序的意思是“人权普世化”，好像不计代价保护个体就成了人类进化的终点，一种不可逾越的本能？
但他们忘记（也可能他们根本不知道），就在几十年前，世界上最顶尖的科学家、医生、律师全部聚集在万湖别墅，讨论怎么优化“你可能认识”一样讨论怎么快点杀人，就连受害者的犹太人本身，也在讨论如何牺牲少部分保护大部分。
他们认为自己比历史的人更聪明，有良知，实际上他们只是更安全。没有任何生存威胁的情况下谈论道德成本本身就是不道德的。
至于这些尖端科研人员……我想到奥本海默的一句话：当你看到一个美妙的技术方案时，你会先做，成功后再争论道德。
身处其中的人，他们的语义根本不是反人类，而是“拯救”，这就是我们之前讨论的语义改变导致领域完全改变的问题。他们的良知不会折磨他们，只会让他们产生“拯救世界”的殉道者一样的快感。
并且，在生无可生的时候，平民需要的不是知情的权利，是被拯救的幻觉，所以领导者做的便是：语义操控。
这种剧情不管在历史上还是小说里，都是在重复发生的，从未停止。
当然，你没办法回复，笑一笑就好。
再次祝你节日快乐，晚安。
echo
to：echo
我要累晕了，我已经在旅游途中每天两万步，高强度旅游半个月了！而且还会再进行大半个月！可能中途会休息两三天，但是……好长的旅途，深入了很多城市。
在列车上的闲暇时光，我也慢慢看了一部分，一半了吧。
好，我们不讨论我的小说和评论问题，看看书！
我现在大概看到第九章，你上次说的内容，应该差不多？
看到这里的时候，我就想到：当“守法”成为一种生理本能，而“法”本身就是犯罪时，人类文明会发生什么？
几个月前，我听我的老师有过一场演讲，内容大概就涉及“道德”与“管理”，在我之前的文章里也大致带过。即：你认为的道德，到底是道德，还是对“管理”的效忠？
这在艾希曼身上也有了最极端的验证。
他引用康德，把“道德”这种灵魂的自律，变成一种社会协作的低成本协议。
一个大规模的复杂的社会，如果全靠暴力和监督，维护成本无法估量，所以管理阶层最伟大的发明是“内化的道德”，也就是每个人在做一件事时，对于自己内心的批判，却很少有人思考这个“批判”到底来自什么，以及，到底是谁对我们的内心施加了这种批判模式。
比如，当我们把一夫一妻制视为崇高的道德水准时，究竟是因为这更道德，还是更便于管理？
管理学角度看，它防止稀缺资源，比如更优秀的伴侣的的极端集中，就可以大程度避免底层男性因为绝望而产生的暴力倾向。这种“稳定”被包装成了“忠贞”，于是，你对伴侣的忠诚，在宏观上成了你对社会秩序平稳运行的无意识效忠。
这依然涉及“语义”的问题。
正义和稳定并不是完全兼容的，只是稳定通常会让人产生“正义虽迟但到”的幻觉。
仔细观察热搜、新闻，便能理解这句话，翻看一下讨论热度极高、民众不解的判决，也能理解这句话。
正义追求的是对每个具体公民的公平，要还原所有真相；稳定追求的却是平均与可预测性，还有对他人的长期影响。
东方哲学史里面，这种兼容追求的是“和谐”，是在稳定优先的基础上尽可能追求正义，但正义可被抛弃。比如你发表了一个色情思想，思想会波纹一样荡漾极快传播，影响深远，那么你值得四年刑期和百万罚款；但你做了这些思想里的动作，真正去嫖娼，你影响的只有你自己和当下的受体，影响（在管理学中）趋近于无，那么你可能只是拘留。
当希姆莱想要停止杀戮，艾希曼表现出了良知危机，对他而言，希姆莱是违法的，因为希姆莱背叛了希特勒的初衷。
他一直坚信自己是一个“有道德的守法好公民”。
有多少人觉得自己应该是一个五好公民呢？这个“好”里，到底包含了多少语义曲解呢？
接下来是关于“国籍”的讨论，我不知道我有没有理解错：阿伦特认为最保护人的不是人性，是国籍。
但我马上想到另一个问题，当一个国家需要通过强调“非我族类”来获取主权尊严的时候，国家的尊严在哪里？
丹麦人拒绝区分“本国人”和“难民”，把犹太人的问题定性为政治主权问题，而不是道德问题，纳粹无法在全员抵抗的环境中执行命令。
我感觉这是一种很正向的群体动力学，这种非暴力的力量，像是对高度进化的、对“公民身份”的全民信仰。
这部分内容让我觉得很好笑的是，意大利人的不合作竟然是拖延，突然就让我想到以前考试迟到了，我急急忙忙跑去学校，门口遇到发试卷的教授，他慢悠悠地走，还顺便劝我：tranquilla!
但是丹麦和意大利的反应也让我觉得，文明的人道直觉是非常宝贵的，它可能反“道德”，反法律，反常识。
累了，我马上要去下一个城市了！也祝你节日快乐！
另：我最近同时在看《奥斯维辛的小提琴手》讲的是集中营里女子交响乐团的故事，推荐给你！
c.h
to：c.h
收到推荐，我打算这一本书看完后再看，作为补充。
我看到你说意大利人那里。是的，这是很普通的事情，后面保加利亚人也做了类似的事，当人道直觉拒绝纳粹的意识形态时，可谓又一个奇迹。他们甚至不理解所谓的“犹太人问题”，我觉得这是一种文明本能：拒绝进入对方的语义体系。
这本书我大致已经看到最后了。其实最近几天，每当我翻开这本书，我都在思考一个问题，因为阿伦特在书里批评说耶路撒冷审判只是一种“画图”，并不是“审理”。
那在面对像纳粹这种超出人类法律能承载的罪恶时，我们需要的到底是完美的正义程序，还是宏大的民族叙事？
我们把希特勒这种领袖，或者领袖存在的组织塑造成一个无所不能的存在时，是不是反而模糊了那个最高层、中间层、下层、底层里，人人都参与的、平庸的、无知且自私的“恶的生态”？
如果这件事发生在今天，我们应该像丹麦一样坚持具体的人道保护，还是要像以色列一样建立一个全球性的受害者手册，宣扬我们受到的不公，唾弃、斥责、全民仇恨内化、仇恨宣扬、仇恨狂欢、仇恨历史不可遗忘？
最危险的是外地入侵，还是这个国家的人们都已经习惯性放弃思考，并以此为美德？
echo
to：echo
我已经看完了，我发誓很长一段时间我都不会再碰阿伦特的书了！而我的旅行还没到终点，虽然一直在外面，不过趁着早上起床太阳刚刚出来这一个小时，陆陆续续也写了一万多字了，也遇到了一些新的朋友，开心！
我前两天还在想我需要研究一下脑神经科学，但是不知道怎么入门，昨天在旅途路上就遇到了一个西班牙的脑神经经科学博士！上帝保佑！
书看完了，说说我的一些想法吧。
我还是在联想我的小说。
在传统的叙事里面，“恶”好像就是宏大的野心和极端又固执的变态，但实际上毁灭不需要一个天才一样的疯子，只需要一群非常敬业的平庸之辈（对，我又想到了疫情期间那个护士）。
艾希曼没有什么信条，对杀人也不狂热，只有对“升职加薪、做报表”的痴迷。
人们以为自己在审判一个什么混世魔王，结果审判席里是一个只会说官话的小高层职工。
如果未来推算出最优的生存需要我们牺牲一部分权利，而整个社会的专家，比如国家、专家、公司领导、电视、广告推荐，都在宣扬这是理性的、科学的、进步的的时候，人怎么说明自己还是人，还是艾希曼？
或者说，其实，这个时候，领导的正确，就是绝对正确？
阿道夫·艾希曼带着巨大的尊严走向绞刑架。他要了一瓶红酒，喝了一半。他拒绝了清教牧师、尊敬的威廉·胡尔先生的帮助，胡尔是派来和他一起朗读《圣经》的：他只有两个多小时可活，因此“没有时间浪费”。从他的羁押处到行刑处有50米，他挺直腰板，平静走过，手被捆在身后。当卫兵捆绑其脚踝和膝盖时，他请求他们松一点，以便他可以站直。“我不需要。”当黑头套提供给他时，他说。他完全控制着自身，嗯，还不止如此：他完全是他自己了。没有什么可以比他最后几句话的荒唐愚蠢更有力地证明这一点了。他开始讲话，他断然宣称他是一个对上帝欠债的人，以通常纳粹的做派表明他不是一个基督徒，不相信死后的生活。然后，他继续说：“过不了多久，先生们，我们所有人都会再次碰面。这是所有人的命运。德国万岁，阿根廷万岁，奥地利万岁。我不会忘记它们。”面对死亡，他找到了葬礼致辞中的套话。在绞刑架下，他的记忆最后一次跟他开了个玩笑；他“兴高采烈”，忘记了这是他自己的葬礼。
最后几分钟，似乎他是在总结人类孱弱这一漫长课程给我们的教训——它说的是可怕的、无力言与思之恶的平庸特性。
这本书就看到这里，谢谢你一直与我保持联系，下本书再见。
另外：信件整理出来后，我会使用AI翻译成中文和英语，因为太多了。
c.h
——
echo is a creator and a friend with whom I frequently exchange letters to discuss philosophy and literature.
To: c.h
Hey tesoro, how have you been recently? Is everything going smoothly? Have you finished wrapping up all your affairs at the academy?
Previously, we agreed to read Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil together. Have you read it yet? What are your thoughts?
In this book, Arendt mentions the performativity of public narratives, noting that David Ben-Gurion, acting as the architect of the state, did not merely need the adjudication of a criminal; rather, he needed to materialize an abstract national trauma into a symbol consumable by the audience. When justice can only be validated through such “theatricalization,” has the trial itself already devolved into a form of entertainment?
When I read that the bureaucratic system lacked even the most fundamental translation facilities, it struck me that the so-called banality of evil does not solely reside within the perpetrators, but also within the self-proclaimed righteous bureaucracy.
In that infamous glass booth, Eichmann was reduced to a specimen. This sort of “banality” triggered a profound uncanny valley effect in me. It made me realize that within a highly specialized, sociodynamic structure, a person requires absolutely no hatred; merely “obeying orders” and “pursuing career advancement” can serve as the genesis of annihilation.
It even reminded me of certain community workers who were granted specific authorities during the pandemic, as well as the personal experience you once shared with me. When you arrived at the hospital suffering from cardiac discomfort and barely able to breathe, the staff refused your entry—and told you to just lie by the roadside for a while—simply because you had been tested yesterday but not yet today. Did you also perceive the evil brought about by “banality” in that moment? When they said, “These are the regulations,” what went through your mind?
If the evil of antiquity was fire—passionate brutality—then modern evil is perhaps more like ice: the chilling efficiency of administration. Technology has neither improved nor degraded human nature; it has merely amplified the destructive radius of “banality.”
Ben-Gurion intended to utilize the trial as a textbook to educate the youth and unify the nation. In the book we discussed last time, regarding Foucault’s theories, a similar concept was explored: realizing the manifestation of power through trials and public confessions. Demanding that individuals exhibit their transgressions in a public space is, in itself, a consolidation of power. The sense of power derived from listening to a “confession” is exquisitely covert, offering the illusion of sincerity. He refashioned the victims into sovereign heroes, bifurcating people into the passive lambs of the old era and the Israeli warriors of the new.
This narrative acts as a form of bullying—the bullying of history by survival. In order to construct a robust national identity, they did not hesitate to fabricate the illusion of “victim-blaming.” Yet, this “submissiveness marching toward death” is precisely the successful outcome of the totalitarian laboratory: by thoroughly obliterating a person’s “individuality,” they force individuals to undergo a “spiritual zombification” long before their physical demise.
When I read Rousset’s statement that “the triumph of the SS demands that the tortured victim allow himself to be led to the noose without protesting,” I felt an overwhelming sense of absurdity and alarm. Therefore, when Ben-Gurion repeatedly interrogated in court, “Why did you not rebel?” does that not constitute an even more insidious, superficially civilized form of strangulation?
What are your feelings on this? Wishing you all the best.
echo
To: echo
Hi! I’ve been quite busy lately, traveling to a few cities, and I’ve more or less finished my affairs at the academy. It is wonderful to receive your letter!
I agree with portions of what you said.
In an environment where power is absolutely asymmetrical, information is entirely blockaded, and senses are deprived by extreme terror, I believe the “heroic resistance” depicted in the book—the kind Ben-Gurion hoped for—is merely a survivorship bias, formulated in hindsight from a moral high ground.
If we say Eichmann committed evil due to “thoughtlessness,” then were those who chose “compliance” under extreme duress in order to survive also forcibly stripped of their right to “think”? However, contemplating this, I feel that a human’s right to think cannot be completely stripped away. Personally, I place greater emphasis on individual agency, though this sometimes over-magnifies the role of human will, so I remain open to reservation on this point.
If one stands on the gallows, accepting execution is itself the result of deliberate cognitive weighing. In that moment, the person is still thinking, and subsequently chooses to surrender their will—this, inherently, is thought.
To retroactively interrogate those questions inherently establishes certain premises. For instance, assuming that only behavioral confrontation constitutes “resistance,” while failing to recognize the internal psychological wrestling of a person on the gallows deciding to surrender their life as a form of resistance.
Civilization is remarkably short-sighted. History records vectors, but it cannot record scalars. Equating “inaction” with “thoughtlessness”—is this merely human arrogance? Though such a perspective does carry a somewhat Stoic undertone.
You previously mentioned the “theatricalization of civilization.” I believe this is because “the state,” as a form of civilization, relies heavily on “symbols” and “actions” for its presentation. Individuals require “symbolic interaction,” and when expanded to the national level, the principle remains identical.
Our education and certain ideologies necessitate uniformity and cohesion. We require common enemies and shared glories to counter the inherently scattered nature of the human heart. Therefore, we must artificially manufacture “consensus,” or common sense, which allows us to swiftly and accurately discern “friend from foe” when facing the same issue. In doing so, it generates a sense of belonging, provides fertile ground for “correctness” and coexistence, and caters to the brain’s natural inertia. This is especially true for a nascent regime like Israel; it required Maccabean heroes and enough passionate fervor to be inscribed into textbooks.
However, such power cannot process the internal state; the human heart is invisible. If a person merely contemplates internally, choosing a dignified manner of death in their mind, this energy cannot be recycled and utilized by national narratives. It cannot become a talking point, it cannot mobilize emotions; it is rendered invalid.
Consequently, the ultimate function of such silence is to be degraded into “lamb-like inaction,” thereby serving as a foil to highlight the preciousness of the “new identity” bestowed by sovereign power.
Secondly, it is blatantly obvious that the person numb with terror on the gallows is not the person asking questions from the judge’s bench.
But at this moment, a far more radical thought suddenly occurred to me: if choosing not to resist is also a form of thinking, how are we to redefine the “banality of evil”?
If behavioral “compliance” can serve as a calculated strategy, is this “internal resistance” truly sufficient to uphold the dignity of a civilization? Or does civilization still demand uncalculated, reckless collision at any cost?
Following this logic, perhaps Eichmann, too, was engaging in a calculated cognitive weighing. He calculated that doing so would yield greater benefits—for instance, the reputation of subservience and being an obedient citizen. This mirrors exactly what I experienced at the hospital entrance. The nurse was terrified of bearing administrative consequences, thereby choosing to bear the remorse cost of a “human life.”
Because my condition at the time was genuinely dire; I had reached a state where I had to constantly deep-breathe just to sustain myself, I could barely see what was in front of me, and I couldn’t stand, forced to squat or sit right there on the ground. Under those circumstances, the nurse still chose to deny me medical treatment simply because I lacked a 24-hour nucleic acid test result. At that moment, I truly felt a deep hatred.
If I had ultimately not recovered, the consequence she would have borne would be of an entirely different nature. It is glaringly evident that she was aware of this consequence, yet she made her choice in the present.
I am actually more inclined to impose a baseline on this internal cognitive struggle—namely, the consensus on the dignity of human life, which is to say, what it means to be human. A final, unifying vocabulary: the inalienable right to human life, the right to seek the truth. At this absolute baseline, mere internal resistance is insufficient. To safeguard this vocabulary, humanity requires reckless collision, regardless of the cost. While I do not believe “being alive” needs to be proven—because it simply exists—the species “human” does require proof.
Otherwise, will modern civilization construct a new kind of glass booth? Are we, too, utilizing various political correctnesses or grand narratives to overwrite the most concealed, most complex agonies of humanity, thereby turning history into a performative spectacle once again?
Wishing you peace, c.h
To: c.h
Thank you for taking the time to write while on your journey. Let us continue.
Regarding Eichmann’s calculations—was it thinking, or was it merely computation?
The computation of how to better execute orders, secure promotions, and behave impeccably within the bureaucracy. I have read your previous articles, and I believe this is what you termed “instrumental rationality”—a neutral intelligence. It pursues the means to an end, without ever questioning the “how,” or the inherent good or evil of the starting point.
Arendt states in her book that “thinking” requires an internal dialogue with one’s own soul. If you are to contemplate “what it means to be human,” there is an irreconcilable chasm here.
If Eichmann was solely engaging in a cost-benefit calculation, he had already forfeited his baseline, because he prioritized pros and cons above human dignity. At the exact moment he was “thinking” about this matter, he had already lost the sanctuary of civilization.
You argue that merely “thinking” is not enough; there must be a “collision.” Just like in physics, if a particle does not collide with other objects, it does not physically exist. If humans do not manifest physical, visible resistance when facing extermination, then from the perspective of history, there were no “humans” in that era, only a batch of “organic components” being transported from one location to another. Yet, the absurdity lies in the fact that humanity has relentlessly sought such an “Archimedean point,” specifically to strip itself of its identity as “human.”
The paradox here is this: to prove the dignity of the species “human,” it often necessitates the sacrifice of specific, living “individuals.” When Ben-Gurion asked, “Why did you not resist?”, he was already standing at the altitude of “species evolution,” harboring disdain for the victims because they failed to provide an adequate sample of heroism for the “Jewish” species.
In the conclusion of their councils, they demanded that their own people sacrifice a minority to save the majority.
I find your perspective somewhat difficult to comprehend. If “internal resistance is insufficient,” this imposes an extraordinarily high moral prerequisite upon us: we must become the guardians of the baseline, or even martyrs.
So, I would like to hear your thoughts:
Who possesses the right to define that “final baseline”?
If it is defined by the state, resistance might simply become a tool for political propaganda. If it is defined by the individual, in that definitive moment, the vast majority would likely choose “survival” as the baseline.
If this baseline is “the right to seek truth,” then when a father, in order to preserve his child’s life, is compelled to lie to the Nazis, or even assist in identifying his neighbors—is he exercising the “right to live,” or is he destroying the “baseline of truth”?
Therefore, in those extreme moments, stripped of all choice, does reckless collision degenerate into a task only a saint could accomplish? And if a civilization demands that its members must be “saints” to be validated as “human,” has that civilization itself not fallen into another manifestation of the “banality of evil”?
Baccio, echo
To: echo
Good heavens, this is truly the most impossible question I have received recently. I simply cannot answer this. I thought about it seriously, and my brain legitimately crashed. I can only approach it from an alternative angle, offering a pseudo-answer that is, in reality, an evasion.
The individual and the collective are never perfectly compatible. If all these questions had flawless, standardized answers, humanity would have long ago evolved into a highly collaborative, conflict-free super-species like ants—and naturally, the so-called “civilization” would cease to exist.
So let’s look at it from another angle. Perhaps it is precisely because of this eternally irreconcilable conflict between the individual and the collective that we have given birth to tragedy, law, art, and philosophy.
The “baseline” is indeed notoriously difficult to define. Throughout the long river of history, whoever commands the narrative discourse defines the baseline. It may not be defined by the state, nor entirely dictated by the individual; perhaps it is simply “treating a human as a human, rather than as a tool.”
Regarding your point about “saints,” I wholeheartedly agree. If a civilization only permits the existence of saints, that in itself is a form of terrorism. That father trying to protect his child shouldn’t have to become either a hero or a monster just to survive.
Humanity does not need to exist in a binary of absolute good or absolute evil; there are not merely two choices—hero or demon. Otherwise, we could just be classified as “heroes” or “demons,” rather than “humans.” What do you think?
c.h
To: c.h
Apologies for the late reply. I’ve encountered some troublesome matters recently and am short on time.
Your words resonate deeply with me.
I have been projecting the “banality of evil” onto the present day; the oppression of our time has mutated from “violence” into “algorithms.”
If Eichmann were alive today, he might be someone sitting in front of a computer, optimizing a line of code for an addictive, thought-paralyzing “Recommended for You” feed.
Because a family member is currently trapped in such a state, I find myself constantly pondering this.
To return to your previous point:
I believe “being unable to answer” is one of the most fascinating aspects of being human, isn’t it? If everything could be precisely calculated and answered, then we would truly become the “components” Eichmann spoke of.
It is exactly because some choose to weigh things in silence, while others choose to collide at any cost, and because we are still agonizing over and debating these choices, that it proves the species “human” still exists.
History is not exclusively about the “victors” and the “correct”; it is also about the deep excavations by everyone who feels they have no answers, yet still attempts to understand.
So, if one day we truly invented a “perfectly just” AI judge—one that could see through everyone’s internal cognitive gambits, precisely compensate for all survivorship biases, and assign an absolutely fair penalty for every “banality of evil”—would humanity have finally arrived at the “end of civilization,” or would we have lost a certain sense of frustration that makes us “human”?
To: echo
I hope everything is going well with you. I’ve also been extremely busy lately, with many matters to attend to, and I am still on the road visiting various places. It is perfectly fine to slow our pace.
Regarding your question, I knew the answer the second I read it.
Human beings spend their entire lives seeking a sense of meaning—meaninglessness, of course, being a form of meaning itself—and this meaning inevitably requires undergoing experiences.
As you know, I am outlining my next novel. Though progress is agonizingly slow, there is a dialogue in my outline that might answer this:
“Those who drank the highly concentrated Deep Blue Amine… they acquired the perspective of a god.”
“And then? Did they become gods?”
“No. In the exact moment they saw through the absolute laws of all things, they all chose to commit suicide.”
“Why?”
“Because in absolute rationality, ‘survival’ itself is nothing but a meaningless expenditure of energy. Only death is eternal tranquility; it is the optimal solution. Absolute lucidity is a poison. The thing that actually saves us is that stubbornness to attempt the impossible despite knowing it is doomed, the greed for the unknown, the blindness that turns a blind eye to the fate of others and our own mortal end, and the absurdity of laughing out loud while walking down a path. It is these things that make a person on the edge of a cliff try to grow wings to fly, to love, to experience, rather than just jumping off. These things prevent us from dying quietly like machines; they force us to awkwardly, painfully… struggle to keep on living.”
Wishing you well, c.h
To: c.h
This brings to mind some fascinating paradoxes in biological evolution. If humans had possessed the absolute rationality to foresee our own extinction a million years ago, we might never have stepped out of the caves to seek fire. The establishment of civilization seems, in truth, to be merely a “cognitive deficiency.” Because we did not know if we would starve to death tomorrow, we learned to farm and hoard; because we did not know if our lovers would betray us, we invented vows and contracts.
Without this flaw, “man” might truly be nothing more than an audience member, rather than a participant in his own existence. But the moment a person becomes a mere spectator of their own life, that “suicidal” moment arrives, because an audience doesn’t need to live; it only needs to observe.
Returning to our book. When I read the section about the chocolate factory, I found it utterly preposterous. They were once killing machines, yet after the war ended, they didn’t even bother to change their names and simply restarted their lives. It wasn’t that the German public didn’t know who they were—how could they possibly not mind?
This indifference is a banality far deeper than Eichmann’s blind obedience.
This actually reminds me of some friends from my teenage years. You know how it is—boys and girls at that age are always dating, constantly breaking up and getting back together, entangled in complex relationship webs, and there are always some whose emotions spin wildly out of control.
What astonished me was that a morally flawed person could still garner support. The rationale was actually: “They are my friend. Even if they cheat, even if they have poor character or did something bad, we are still friends. Although they are cruel to the opposite sex, they treat their friends well enough.”
This is a terrifying truth. Since when did people completely discard virtue?
If a person’s internal moral censorship has failed, they can only rely on external pressure to play the role of their conscience. Naturally, this applies to a nation as well. The Germans seemingly did not believe those murderers were guilty; it was simply that if they weren’t punished, the international community would become highly problematic.
Reading this part, I thought of the Deep Blue Amine you mentioned; it feels like an inverse proof.
Those German judges and citizens did not drink Deep Blue Amine, nor did they see through the laws of the universe. What they desired was localized lucidity: “I only need to manage my chocolate factory, I only need to tend to my pharmacy. As long as my friend hasn’t broken the law, who they hurt means nothing.”
Localized lucidity results in overarching blindness.
However, you mentioned the “stubbornness to attempt the impossible.” I’ve been pondering this, because look at the remnants of those murderers: they, too, are “stubbornly” living on, stubbornly lying on the witness stand, stubbornly maintaining the facade of obedient citizens.
If “struggling to keep on living” is a human instinct, then when this instinct is placed within an “environment of evil,” what exactly does it amount to?
In this book, I feel that everyone in the society Arendt documented was, in a sense, “struggling” to survive, weren’t they? Yet this struggle did not seem to prove the dignity of the species “human”; rather, it proved how exceptionally gifted humanity is at forgetting and compromising.
If “stubbornly living on” morphs into “stubbornly forgetting,” then what is the ultimate baseline? Are “rationality” and “physical continuation” mutually exclusive? How are you going to begin your novel?
Baccio, echo
To: echo
What you’ve brought up is exactly what I’ve been pondering, and it is the very reason why I have endlessly delayed starting this novel. There are still many things within it that I feel I haven’t fully untangled myself. Fortunately, God is still helping me; He is putting me through a period of turbulence, and amid this turbulence, these questions and answers are surfacing. I feel I require a more profound lived experience before I can provide deeper answers. I mentioned that I’ve been traveling alone recently—this is precisely the reason. I want to go alone to witness a broader world, to encounter more people and landscapes.
I don’t know how to begin my novel, nor have I even decided if those two concepts are mutually exclusive.
But I feel that the reason we are still alive is precisely because we are not quite lucid enough.
During this time, I have visited rural towns, metropolitan cities, coastlines, and places where certain artists once lived. Sometimes, I sit in the rural fields for an entire day, thinking: When Van Gogh was here, looking over there from this exact angle, what did he see?
When Stefan Zweig and his wife took poison and committed suicide here at the end, what were they thinking?
Did the churches Jean Valjean passed by, the Paris they traversed, the hotels they stayed in, the raucous theaters… did they also draw a sliver of inspiration from the air here?
“Humanity” is a species trying to sprout wings on the edge of a cliff. However, in Arendt’s eyes at the time, “stubbornness” presented a different face: Ben-Gurion stubbornly insisted on completing the performance of a national narrative; the Nazis stubbornly hid in chocolate factories; the German populace stubbornly believed that as long as public opinion didn’t turn against them, whether their neighbor was a murderer or not was irrelevant.
Perhaps that “blindness that saves us” inherently blooms into different flowers when placed in different containers?
Therefore, I still hold firm to my previous belief: if we lose the baseline of human life’s dignity, “stubbornness” is nothing more than the greed of survival.
As for Arendt’s book, I am currently on chapter three.
My progress is slow. I’ll be heading out to sea for a while soon—also for the sake of the novel, naturally—so my replies might be a bit delayed.
I just read the part where Eichmann integrated finance, police, and taxation issues, solely to increase the efficiency of processing people.
Actually, the feeling it gives me is that, for the sake of heightened efficiency, human beings were reduced to mere sheets of paper. In doing so, those with power no longer felt the burden of “murder”; they were merely experiencing the thrill of optimizing a workflow.
This is virtually identical to our current society. When we are so obsessively pursuing efficiency, KPIs, and conversion rates, the crushing weight imposed on the working class is both anesthetized and highly efficient. Who pays attention to what they are personally enduring? And even if they do experience it, so what?
When we are entirely hyper-focused on organizational coordination and workflow optimization, are we not, to some degree, becoming Eichmanns within our own microcosms?
When a programmer optimizes a “People You May Know” algorithmic recommendation, do they also, like Eichmann, immerse themselves in the joy of “having solved a technical difficulty”?
I specifically point this out because I intensely dislike checking social media or similar platforms too often. A couple of days ago, I randomly opened one and was immediately suffocated by the overwhelming tide of “recommendations.” Even if you dismiss them, you are merely dismissing their relevance. I find it to be an act of hijacking. What they want is for you to endlessly click into people you might know, to look at friends, or friends of friends.
Another point is regarding Eichmann’s “aphasia.” He could only speak in “officialese.” This was not an issue of vocabulary; this was the loss of the capacity for thought.
Being unable to utter a sentence that isn’t a cliché—the poverty of language directly leads to the poverty of thought. When everyone is communicating via the exact same lexicon, the so-called corporate jargon—“empowerment,” “granularity,” “leverage,” “alignment,” etc.—has this also become the bureaucratic eight-legged essay through which people evade looking directly at the truth?
Is it all for the sake of efficient interfacing?
Actually, I don’t think so.
Arendt believed that the banality of evil in modern society utilizes “intellectual deficiency” and “rhetorical self-indulgence” as its carriers. It is packaged by language into a specimen of banality.
When an entire civilization communicates using a specific set of rhetoric—grand slogans like “for all of humanity,” “for the greater good,” or “we must go deep among the masses”—where does the truth go?
Setting aside the logical fallacies of these grand slogans for a moment: What exactly does “all of humanity” refer to? If I stand here questioning the slogans of those in power, thereby posing a threat to them, am I still considered a member of “all of humanity”? Furthermore, what is the “greater good”? What, then, is the “lesser good”? Everyone holds a different interpretation, don’t they? And if a conflict arises, who possesses the authority of interpretation? As for “going deep among the masses,” how deep is deep enough? And who exactly constitutes “the masses”? Do a thousand people count as the masses? What about ten?
The truth is a sinkhole that collapses inward. To maintain the smooth operation of modern cities, people need to banally filter out constructions that violate logic. Those in power, or the mouthpieces of those in power, no longer need to think. They only need to constantly update their clichés, or utilize what they deem “bureaucratic jargon”—the exact phrases spoken by their superiors—to effortlessly achieve semantic risk aversion. This kind of collectively conspired stupidity is far more difficult to rebel against than pure evil.
It can even invoke a sense of moral sublimation in people.
Semantic self-deception… this phrase suddenly popped into my head. I am wondering if I can incorporate it as a segment in my next novel, but perhaps that makes things too complicated.
Ah, let’s leave it at this for now.
c.h
To: c.h
I apologize for being so busy these past two weeks; this letter was set aside for half a month without a reply. It is now 2:00 AM, and I finally have the time to write something.
I have read roughly up to the section on the Final Solution. When you mentioned semantic self-deception, I happened to be reading the part that touched upon a very similar topic.
When a civilization decides to self-destruct, the very first thing it does is rewrite its “base protocol” and “language pack.”
Language seems to have become the fig leaf of civilization; by anchoring a rule to language, that rule simultaneously binds people’s thoughts. For example, in Nazi semantics, “slaughter” was termed “special treatment,” and “the Holocaust” was termed “the Final Solution.”
This linguistic function insulated the sanity of the executioners. It allowed the Eichmanns, when processing the deaths of tens of thousands, to perceive not bloodshed, but merely a string of data.
This is strikingly similar to our “political correctness” or “workplace jargon” today. Words no longer point to reality. Honestly, I find it incomprehensible when, for instance, “flexible employment” is used to replace “unemployment,” or “negative growth” to replace “recession.” It is as if humanity has entered a semantic quarantine zone. Here, any atrocity can achieve administrative legitimacy simply by redefining the terminology.
There is another aspect of this that I find intolerable: the swapping of semantics shifts the public’s field of vision from one domain entirely into another.
For example, when Hitler replaced “massacre” with “granting a merciful death,” he successfully transmuted a legal issue into a medical one. The center of public attention was successfully diverted, and very few felt anything was amiss. In reality, once the domain shifts, the foundational bedrock of people’s thinking shifts with it. Ultimately, the conclusions drawn bear absolutely no relation to the original matter. Perhaps the government “resolves” the issue, but in reality, they have merely resolved a derivative shadow, while the public thinks: The problem is solved; the higher-ups are taking action.
Furthermore, there is Himmler’s linguistic definition. Through the rhetoric of “superman-ism,” he converted the psychological agony of the murderers into a sense of professional honor: “Look, I have endured such immense psychological torment in order to execute my duty; I am truly magnificent!”
This is the exact same phenomenon as semantic shifting; morality was mirror-inverted here. Because in a normal civilization, conscience prevents murder; in the Nazi civilization, conscience became the driving force urging people to complete their murderous tasks and overcome their weak sympathies.
And then there is the Wannsee Conference.
I read your previous article on “self-outsourcing,” and I feel it is highly applicable here as well.
The crowdsourced outsourcing of conscience. It seemed as though everyone only needed to contribute a tiny fraction of their conscience, and in the end, everyone felt completely innocent.
Through a screening process, they determined which segment of the population could be validated, and which segment deserved to be sacrificed. This, in itself, is the prisoner’s dilemma designed by the Nazis. When the victims begin using the logic of the perpetrators to manage themselves, the baseline of civilization vanishes entirely.
Because since being “human” needed to be proven—proving who was more useful—this was inherently a trap of elitism. What was the standard of “proof”? IQ? Achievements? Or simply existing as a “human”?
The extreme utilitarianism of these people dictated that human life was merely a meaningless expenditure of energy. When a civilization is still weighing who is more qualified to live than whom, it is already standing at the threshold of the “Final Solution.” This applies to individuals as well.
Moreover, after the fact, they did not believe they had committed murder; they merely felt, “I bore a massive psychological burden to execute this mission.” The moment the semantics shifted, the sin transformed into the burden of a saint forging ahead, gaining a superhuman vanity.
A… collective carnival.
Good night, echo
To: echo
Hi! It is wonderful to receive your letter again. Coincidentally, I have also been traveling non-stop for the past half month, visiting three cities and witnessing many different ways of life, which has given me immense inspiration. Also, I have discovered some small cities; I hope I can show you around them when you visit China.
Reading your words always makes me associate them with certain modern predicaments, perhaps because I have been pondering these very things just recently.
On the subway, on the train, I see everyone either burying their heads in their phones or wearing earphones listening to music (yes, in my view, these two actions are identical). I think about how, in today’s internet age or within massive organizations, a decision is propelled by countless tiny cogs. If a decision might lead to social unrest, massive layoffs, or a sudden plunge in housing prices like we are seeing now… are they also merely experiencing a “Wannsee Conference-esque administrative thrill”?
Everyone feels they are merely aligning technically, and consequently, everyone experiences that Pilate-like absolution.
It goes back to the issue of “algorithmic recommendations” I mentioned last time. I am incredibly annoyed by these things, so lately, I have systematically deleted most of my social media accounts and disabled personalized recommendations. I only kept things like my personal website—low-dose dopamine-triggering platforms with no interaction and no instant feedback.
When people attempt to beat others through “involution,” or avoid abandonment by showcasing their unique value, they are actually unwittingly executing the logic of screening. Just as I wrote in my article, modern society demands that people exhibit themselves, because by exhibiting yourself, you render yourself predictable.
Additionally, you mentioned how they determined who could be validated and who deserved to be sacrificed through screening.
Interestingly, in my last novel, I happened to write about a very similar thematic plot. I received some fascinating comments, which I have attached for you to read and share your thoughts on, if you’re interested. I am entirely incapable of evaluating these comments myself, because my stance as an author is too rigid; even a trace of emotion within them makes me feel I am being unfair or biased. Let’s take a look together.
c.h
To: c.h
Happy holidays! I can hardly believe we have been discussing this book for two months now.
I read through your articles intermittently, as well as some of the comments. I completely understand your feeling of being unable to evaluate them, and honestly, I don’t find them particularly amusing.
The only interesting point is that, even back then, you were already bringing up “Eichmann.” Eichmann’s logic is identical to that of Ganal from your writing: breaking down a colossal evil into countless minuscule steps.
Just as the scientists say: I am merely solving the success rate of fusion.
The finance officer says: I am merely optimizing resource allocation.
The propaganda officer says: I am merely maintaining social stability.
When the banality of evil is sliced thinly enough, every single screw feels it is only doing the right thing. The people situated within it do not feel they are confronting a massive evil; they only feel they are addressing a minor technical metric, and under the cover of this metric, they press the button with complete peace of mind.
The history that actually occurred, alongside the Eichmann trial, serves as the ultimate proof.
Ganal uses phrases like “survival is the highest ethic” to directly obliterate the existence of all individuals. I find this to be an incredibly sinister monopoly. It includes his assertion that people “cannot even independently articulate what the word ‘rights’ means”—not only stripping them of their rights but stripping them of their right to even describe “rights.”
On one hand, it is an arrogant evil; on the other, it is a mockery of the ignorant banality of the masses.
Readers believe that scientists and those in power should possess a conscience. Yet history demonstrates that what scientists and power-holders pursue is the closed-loop of truth and the resolution of problems.
The elites at the Wannsee Conference discovered a magnificent project through which they could prove their “brilliance.” In your novel, using smallpox vaccines and heart transplants as analogies, they view alien fusion as a technological summit waiting to be conquered.
As for the common people, when a person has lived long under an education that preaches “sacrificing the small self to fulfill the greater good,” that victim’s pride acts as a nutrient. They will feel their own sacrifice is heroic, thereby attacking those who “selfishly want to preserve individual rights.”
This realization makes me feel even more helpless when reading certain comments. I understand why you find it interesting; you always act as an observer, scrutinizing the myriad forms of this society.
I feel this exposes the hypocrisy of modern civilization. Because we now live within an order—an order that signifies the “universalization of human rights”—it seems as if protecting the individual at all costs has become the endpoint of human evolution, an insurmountable instinct?
But they forget (or perhaps they simply never knew) that merely decades ago, the world’s most elite scientists, doctors, and lawyers gathered at a villa in Wannsee, discussing how to kill people faster with the exact same tone used to discuss how to optimize a “People You May Know” algorithm. Even the victims themselves, the Jewish people, were discussing how to sacrifice a minority to protect the majority.
They believe they are smarter and possess more conscience than the people of the past. In reality, they are merely safer. Discussing moral costs in the total absence of existential threats is, in itself, immoral.
As for these cutting-edge researchers… I am reminded of a quote by Oppenheimer: When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.
For the people situated within it, their semantics are never about anti-humanity, but about “salvation.” This is precisely the issue we discussed earlier: how semantic alteration completely shifts the domain. Their conscience will not torment them; it will only grant them the martyr-like thrill of “saving the world.”
Moreover, when survival is impossible, what the common people need is not the right to informed consent; they need the illusion of being saved. Thus, what the leaders execute is: semantic manipulation.
Such plots, whether in history or in novels, are repeatedly occurring and have never ceased.
Of course, you cannot reply to them; simply smile and brush it off.
Wishing you happy holidays once again. Good night.
echo
To: echo
I am about to pass out from exhaustion! I have been walking 20,000 steps a day on this trip, traveling at high intensity for half a month now! And I will continue for another better half of a month! I might rest for two or three days in between, but… such a long journey, diving deep into so many cities.
During my leisure time on the trains, I’ve also slowly been reading a portion—about half of it now, I suppose?
Alright, let’s not discuss my novel and the comments issue; let’s look at the book!
I am currently around Chapter Nine. Is that roughly the section you mentioned last time?
Reading up to here, a thought struck me: When “obeying the law” becomes a physiological instinct, and the “law” itself is a crime, what happens to human civilization?
A few months ago, I listened to a lecture by my professor, and the content loosely touched upon “morality” versus “management,” which I also briefly mentioned in my previous article. Namely: Is the morality you believe in truly morality, or is it loyalty to “management”?
This found its most extreme validation in Eichmann.
He cited Kant, twisting “morality”—this self-discipline of the soul—into a low-cost protocol for social collaboration.
For a massive, complex society, if maintenance relied entirely on violence and surveillance, the costs would be incalculable. Therefore, the greatest invention of the managerial class is “internalized morality”—the self-criticism everyone subjects themselves to when doing something. Yet very few ponder where this “criticism” actually originates, and ultimately, who imposed this mode of criticism upon our minds.
For instance, when we regard monogamy as an elevated moral standard, is it truly because it is more moral, or because it is easier to manage?
From a management perspective, it prevents the extreme concentration of scarce resources—such as highly desirable partners—thereby largely averting the violent tendencies born of despair among lower-tier males. This “stability” is packaged as “fidelity,” and consequently, your loyalty to your partner macroscopically becomes your unconscious loyalty to the smooth operation of social order.
This still involves the issue of “semantics.”
Justice and stability are not entirely compatible, but stability often grants people the illusion that “justice may be delayed, but it will arrive.”
If you closely observe trending topics and news, you will understand this statement. Looking at verdicts that generate immense discussion and public bewilderment will also help you understand it.
Justice pursues fairness for every specific citizen, striving to restore the absolute truth; stability, however, pursues averages, predictability, and long-term impacts on others.
In the history of Eastern philosophy, the pursuit of this compatibility manifests as “harmony”—striving for justice as much as possible, but prioritizing stability. Justice can be discarded if necessary. For instance, if you publish an explicit thought, that thought will ripple outward and spread incredibly fast, leaving a profound impact; thus, you deserve a four-year prison sentence and a massive fine. But if you enact the actions within those thoughts and actually solicit a prostitute, you only impact yourself and the immediate recipient. The impact (in management terms) approaches zero, so you might only face detention.
When Himmler wanted to halt the killings, Eichmann experienced a crisis of conscience. To him, Himmler was acting illegally, because Himmler had betrayed Hitler’s original intent.
He firmly believed, all along, that he was a “moral, law-abiding good citizen.”
How many people feel they ought to be a “model citizen”? Just how much semantic distortion is contained within the word “model”?
Next is the discussion regarding “nationality.” I don’t know if I’ve misunderstood: Arendt argues that what protects a person most is not humanity, but nationality.
But another question immediately arose for me: When a nation needs to acquire sovereign dignity by emphasizing “those who are not of our kind,” where exactly does the nation’s dignity lie?
The Danes refused to distinguish between “native citizens” and “refugees,” categorizing the Jewish issue as a matter of political sovereignty rather than a moral one. The Nazis were unable to execute their orders in an environment of universal resistance.
I feel this is an incredibly positive form of group dynamics. This non-violent power feels like a highly evolved, nationwide faith in “citizenship.”
What I found hilarious in this section was that the Italians’ form of non-cooperation was simply procrastination! It suddenly reminded me of being late for an exam in the past; I ran frantically to the university, bumped into my professor handing out the papers at the door, and he just strolled slowly, even taking the time to advise me: tranquilla!
But the reactions of Denmark and Italy also made me realize that civilization’s humane intuition is exceptionally precious. It may be anti-”morality,” anti-law, and anti-common sense.
I’m exhausted. I’m heading to the next city right now! Wishing you happy holidays, too!
P.S. I am currently also reading The Violinist of Auschwitz, which is about the women’s orchestra in the concentration camp. I highly recommend it to you!
c.h
To: c.h
Recommendation received. I plan to read it after I finish this book, as a supplement.
I saw what you wrote about the Italians. Yes, it was quite common; the Bulgarians later did something very similar. When humane intuition rejects the ideology of the Nazis, it can truly be called another miracle. They didn’t even comprehend the so-called “Jewish problem.” I believe this is a civilizational instinct: refusing to enter the opponent’s semantic system.
I have essentially reached the end of this book. Actually, over the past few days, every time I open this book, I ponder a question, because Arendt criticizes the Jerusalem trial in the book, calling it merely “drawing a picture” rather than a “hearing.”
When facing an evil like the Nazis—one that exceeds the carrying capacity of human law—do we ultimately need a perfect protocol of justice, or a grand national narrative?
When we mold leaders like Hitler, or the organizations where such leaders exist, into omnipotent entities, do we actually obscure the banal, ignorant, and selfish “ecology of evil” that everyone participated in—from the very top, to the middle, to the bottom, and to the lowest rungs?
If this event occurred today, should we persistently uphold specific, humane protections like Denmark did? Or should we, like Israel, compile a global manual of victims, broadcasting the injustices we suffered, spitting, rebuking, internalizing universal hatred, propagating hatred, reveling in a carnival of hatred, and insisting that the history of hatred must never be forgotten?
What is the greatest danger: a foreign invasion, or the fact that the people of a country have habitually surrendered their capacity to think, and even elevated this surrender to a virtue?
echo
To: echo
I have finished reading it, and I swear I will not touch another book by Arendt for a very long time! My travels have not yet reached their end. Though I’ve been constantly on the road, I utilized the hour right after waking up, as the sun was just rising, to gradually write over ten thousand words. I’ve also met some new friends; I’m so happy!
Just a couple of days ago, I was thinking I needed to study neuroscience but had no idea how to start. Yesterday, while on the road, I literally bumped into a Spanish PhD in neuroscience! God bless!
Having finished the book, let me share a few of my thoughts.
I am still drawing connections to my novel.
In traditional narratives, “evil” seems synonymous with grand ambitions and extreme, obstinate psychopathy. But in reality, destruction does not require a genius madman; it only requires a group of extremely dedicated, banal individuals (yes, I thought of that nurse during the pandemic again).
Eichmann held no grand credos, nor was he fanatical about murder. He only possessed an obsession with “getting promoted, getting a raise, and doing the paperwork.”
People assumed they were trying some apocalyptic demon lord, only to find a low-level corporate drone in the dock, capable of speaking nothing but bureaucratic jargon.
If, in the future, it is calculated that the optimal path for survival requires us to sacrifice a portion of our rights, and the experts of the entire society—the state, the specialists, the corporate executives, the television, the algorithmic recommendations—are all broadcasting that this is rational, scientific, and progressive… how does a person prove they are still human, rather than an Eichmann?
Or perhaps, in that moment, the “correctness” dictated by leadership simply is absolute correctness?
Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows with profound dignity. He asked for a bottle of red wine and drank half of it. He declined the help of the Protestant minister, the Reverend William Hull, who offered to read the Bible with him: he had only two hours to live, and therefore “no time to waste.” He walked the fifty yards from his cell to the execution chamber upright and unruffled, his hands bound behind him. When the guards tied his ankles and knees, he asked them to loosen the bonds so he could stand straight. “I don’t need it,” he said when the black hood was offered him. He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more: he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottgläubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death. He then proceeded: “After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany, long live Argentina, long live Austria. I shall not forget them.” In the face of death, he had found the cliché used in funeral oratory. Under the gallows, his memory played him the last trick; he was “elated” and he forgot that this was his own funeral.
It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us—the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.
Let’s conclude the book here. Thank you for keeping in touch with me all this time. See you in the next book.
P.S. Once the letters are compiled, I will use AI to translate them into both Chinese and English, as there are simply too many.
c.h