理查德·費因曼：如何發現生命之美

By Chigozie Obioma

There are few people who evoke as much awe out of intellectuals as Richard Feynman.2

He was a physicist by trade3， but confining his thinking to one easy label would be doing him an injustice. His mental range was broad and flexible， and he knew how to balance differing viewpoints. Perhaps the best example of this is expressed in his timeless wisdom on beauty：

“I have a friend whos an artist and hes sometimes taken a view which I dont agree with very well. Hell hold up a flower and say， ‘look how beautiful it is， and Ill agree. And he says，‘you see， I as an artist can see how beautiful this is， but you as a scientist， oh， take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.And I think hes kind of nutty4.

First of all， the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me， too， I believe， although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is.5 But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

很少有人像理查德·費因曼那樣，能夠獲得知識分子們如此多的敬畏。雖然他的職業是物理學家，但若僅僅用一個簡單的標簽就試圖概括他的思想，那顯然是不夠的。他的思維廣博而靈活，他知道如何平衡不同的觀點，而其中最好的例子就是他對于生命之美的闡述。

At the same time， I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there， the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean， its not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter： There is also beauty at a smaller dimension， the inner structure… also the processes.

The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting—it means that insects can see the color.6

It adds a question—does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms？ Why is it aesthetic？ All kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.”

Beauty in the Form of Essence

We use the word beautiful liberally， but broken down， we only mean a couple of things with it.

The most common association is with scenes that move us. Its with what we cant define or capture any other way because this“what” is simply not a thing thats easily pinned down.7

The aesthetic sense of an artist， as Feynman mentions in his monologue8， plays into exactly this kind of beauty. It works by understanding wholes. It doesnt try to reduce things like love or art or meaning into concrete steps because it knows that it would be futile to try to do so.9

The only point of defining love or art or meaning is to provide utility10； its not to capture truth. Once something is beautiful in this sense， thats the last meaningful word concerning it.

The reason for all this is that such beauty doesnt hide in a specific function of a thing， but more so， it hides in the essence of the whole thing.11 As soon as a small part of it is disturbed， as is the case when we try to reduce it down， then the entire thing breaks down.

There is a famous expression in the world of linguistics that states that “the map is not the territory”12—that as soon as we describe something， it loses some of its truth in the process.

When it comes to things that are beautiful in their general essence， the only way to get close to them is to develop the aesthetic appreciation of the artist—to reason with the senses.13

Beauty as a Matter of Detail

Of course， Feynman did have a point in that there is another path leading to a similar end.

Throughout history， many have suggested that what is simple and functional—meaning that when a thing works and it works well—is intimately connected to the aesthetically pleasing.

In mathematics and physics， for example， how beautiful a proof is provides some evidence that it might be right. The fact that its elegant is valuable beyond just how it makes us feel.

In the sciences， we dont work with wholes， and we rarely accept that something should be taken as it is without it needing to be broken down.14 If we did， progress would be a lot slower.

That said， when good science works， it creates its own kind of beauty. It gives us the power to control a little more of our environment， and it brings us closer to understanding the nature that creates us. It may not explain an essence， but it does uncover a different world.

Its often forgotten that in the process of understanding， we find ourselves with even more questions. The fact that Feynman knew that the flower evolved to attract insects didnt just give him an answer， but it opened up a pathway for him to marvel at15 even more mysteries.

When we dig deep into something that may be explained by our mind and our tools， we gain access to details that work in a way as to create another level of beauty， with their own truth.

Every whole contains a smaller whole within it， so even though reduction doesnt capture it all， when used humbly， it can give us more dimensions to understand and appreciate.

All You Need to Know

The artist and the scientist both see and appreciate the aesthetically profound， but they dont always fully experience what the other person experiences when they look at something.

The artist is better attuned to16 use his deeply refined sense intelligence to feel the essence of something that is considered beautiful and that essence cant be captured any other way. You cant always reduce reality down to words and explanations. Rather， you have to feel.

The scientist， however， has the edge17 when trying to zone in on the details. She is trained to really understand the simplicity and the functionality of something on a deeper level， and that leads to questions， which then leads to mysteries that present their own kind of beauty.

These labels are， of course， generalizations， but they represent archetypes18 of two different kinds of beauty that exist in the world. Although some people will gravitate19 toward the first at the expense of the second， or vice versa， it isnt impossible to train yourself to find awe in one as much as you do the other. The patterns of reality are both complex and simple. Fortunately， we can learn to value both.

1. Richard Feynman： 理查德·費因曼（1918—1988），美國物理學家，加利福尼亞理工學院物理學教授，1965年諾貝爾物理學獎得主。

2. evoke： 引起，喚起；awe： 敬畏；intellectual： 知識分子。

3. by trade： 職業是，就職業而言。

4. nutty：〈俚〉愚蠢的。

5. refined： 高雅的，文雅的；aesthetically： 在審美上。

6. 事實上，花的顏色演變是為了吸引昆蟲來授粉，這個發現很有趣，因為這意味著昆蟲可以看到顏色。pollinate：給……授粉。

7. 我們無法用其他任何方式定義它或捕獲它，因為這就是一個難以確定的事物。pin down： 明確地說明。

8. monologue： 長篇大論。

9. concrete： 具體的，實在的；futile： 沒有意義的。

10. utility： 實用，功用。

11. 這一切的原因在于，這種美并不隱藏在某一事物的特定功能中，而是隱藏在整個事物的本質之中。

12. the map is not the territory： 地圖不等于領土。地圖是我們感知、理解、描述的事物模樣，領土指的是事物的真實模樣。1931年，美國數學家艾爾弗雷德·科日布斯基（Alfred Korzybski）提出此概念，以通俗地解釋數學和人類語言以及與物理現實之間的關系，指信息傳遞不是無損的，我們認知的世界是自身知識積累、價值觀過濾后的世界。

13. 當涉及事物本質上的美時，接近它們的唯一方法就是培養藝術家的審美能力——用感官進行推理。

14. 在科學領域，我們不關注整體，很少直接接受事物的本來面目，而是要對其進行分解。

15. marvel at： 對……大為贊嘆。

16. be attuned to： 適應。

17. edge： 優勢。

18. archetype： 典型，原型。

19. gravitate： 被吸引。