理查德·费因曼：如何发现生命之美

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·費因曼那样，能够获得知识分子们如此多的敬畏。虽然他的职业是物理学家，但若仅仅用一个简单的标签就试图概括他的思想，那显然是不够的。他的思维广博而灵活，他知道如何平衡不同的观点，而其中最好的例子就是他对于生命之美的阐述。

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），美国物理学家，加利福尼亚理工学院物理学教授，1965年诺贝尔物理学奖得主。

2. evoke： 引起，唤起；awe： 敬畏；intellectual： 知识分子。

3. by trade： 职业是，就职业而言。

4. nutty：〈俚〉愚蠢的。

5. refined： 高雅的，文雅的；aesthetically： 在审美上。

6. 事实上，花的颜色演变是为了吸引昆虫来授粉，这个发现很有趣，因为这意味着昆虫可以看到颜色。pollinate：给……授粉。

7. 我们无法用其他任何方式定义它或捕获它，因为这就是一个难以确定的事物。pin down： 明确地说明。

8. monologue： 长篇大论。

9. concrete： 具体的，实在的；futile： 没有意义的。

10. utility： 实用，功用。

11. 这一切的原因在于，这种美并不隐藏在某一事物的特定功能中，而是隐藏在整个事物的本质之中。

12. the map is not the territory： 地图不等于领土。地图是我们感知、理解、描述的事物模样，领土指的是事物的真实模样。1931年，美国数学家艾尔弗雷德·科日布斯基（Alfred Korzybski）提出此概念，以通俗地解释数学和人类语言以及与物理现实之间的关系，指信息传递不是无损的，我们认知的世界是自身知识积累、价值观过滤后的世界。

13. 当涉及事物本质上的美时，接近它们的唯一方法就是培养艺术家的审美能力——用感官进行推理。

14. 在科学领域，我们不关注整体，很少直接接受事物的本来面目，而是要对其进行分解。

15. marvel at： 对……大为赞叹。

16. be attuned to： 适应。

17. edge： 优势。

18. archetype： 典型，原型。

19. gravitate： 被吸引。