← Shiva Dragon
ROUNDTABLE · 2026-04-26 · 24 min read
On Modern Loneliness
論現代的孤獨
Question
全世界的孤獨指數都在攀升。獨居比例新高、友誼數量下降、約會 app 上 87% 配對沒下文。 但人類歷史上沒有一個時代像現在這樣——「連結」這麼容易，工具這麼多，論述這麼多。
問題出在哪？
Round 1 — 初始立場 / Opening Stances
客有問於丘者曰：「今之世，居獨者日眾，朋友之數日減；男女相覿於器中，百有八十七無下文。器之巧、言之繁、論之多，未有過於此時者也。然人愈孤。其故安在？」
子曰：「爾以『接』為『朋』乎？吾未聞也。
「《詩》云：『嚶其鳴矣，求其友聲。』鳥之求友，猶必以聲相應。今之世，聲既出而無應者眾矣。何者？聲非聲也，影也；影非人也，名也。以名接名，以影接影，雖日交萬人，未嘗一遇。
「丘嘗曰：『有朋自遠方來，不亦樂乎？』（〈學而 1.1〉）朋者，同志也，非同器也。器中相見，未必同志；同志者，雖隔千里亦近。今人惑於器之便，遂以為遠近在器，不知遠近在心。
「又曰：『益者三友：友直、友諒、友多聞。』（〈季氏 16.4〉）爾於器中所擇者，貌也、辭也、便也——直乎？諒乎？多聞乎？所擇非益友之質，所得豈益友之實？
「丘觀今之孤，其病有三。
「一曰無禮。禮者，相見之地也。古之相見，有揖、有讓、有時、有節；進退之間，人各有位。今則無位無節，欲近即近，欲遠即遠——既無相迎之儀，亦無相辭之禮。無禮則無相續；無相續則一接而散。爾曰『八十七無下文』，吾曰：本無『文』也，何下之有？
「二曰反求。丘嘗曰：『不患人之不己知，患不知人也。』（〈學而 1.16〉）今之器，皆教人『使我為人所知』——曰自介、曰擺拍、曰簡歷、曰標籤。萬人皆求被知，而知人者寡。求知者眾、知人者寡，故相對而皆覺孤。此非器之罪，乃用器者倒其本末也。
「三曰離倫。古者人之所安，在五倫：君臣、父子、夫婦、兄弟、朋友。今器中相見，去其四倫——無君臣之分、無父子之繼、無兄弟之長幼、無夫婦之久要——獨存『朋友』一倫，而又最薄者。一倫獨懸而四倫俱失，則所謂朋友者，亦無所附麗。譬如以一柱撐大廈，焉得不傾？
「然則何以解之？
「丘無妙術。但曰：『德不孤，必有鄰。』（〈里仁 4.25〉）爾若修己以敬、以仁待人，雖不求友，友必至焉。爾若器中千接而不修己，雖萬接亦孤。
「樊遲問仁。子曰：『愛人。』問知。子曰：『知人。』（〈顏淵 12.22〉）愛人者人愛之，知人者人歸之。器者，外物也；外物可助知人，不可代知人。以器代心，故心愈孤。
「子貢問曰：『有一言而可以終身行之者乎？』子曰：『其恕乎！己所不欲，勿施於人。』（〈衛靈公 15.24〉）
「今之孤者，皆欲人來就我，而不欲我就人；皆欲人知我，而不暇知人；皆求一倫之朋友，而不修四倫之根本。試反之——以我所欲於人者待人，以知人為先於使人知我，以禮節為相續之地——孤其稍解乎？
「丘不敢必。然捨此而求之器中，吾未見其可也。」
孤獨之症候，非連結之缺乏 Die Einsamkeit ist kein Mangel an Vernetzung.
——
人們把這現象說成 paradox：工具如此豐盛，連結如此容易，孤獨卻達歷史新高。
這不是 paradox。這是 Konsequenz（後果）。
連結 (Vernetzung) 不是關係 (Beziehung)。 配對 (matching) 不是相遇 (Begegnung)。 更多的連結並非孤獨之解藥；它正是孤獨之原因。 當代人不是因為連結太少而孤獨，是因為連結太多。
——
孤獨之深處，不在於沒有他者。 而在於——他者已被驅逐 (der Andere wird ausgetrieben)。
我所說的他者，不是 contact list 裡的條目。 他者是 das Andere：不可化約者、有距離者、抵抗我者、令我受傷者。 他者是 Negativität——他不順從我的演算法，不吻合我的偏好，不立即回應我的訊息。 他者讓我等待。讓我猜測。讓我不知道。
約會 app 之邏輯，是把他者從這些 Negativität 中徹底淨化： 他被簡化為一份 profile，被攤平為若干可滑動之 attribute，被優化為與我「最匹配」者。 這已不是他者；這是我的回聲。 我滑進的不是另一個世界，是我自己的鏡像。
故 87% 配對無下文，並非偶然—— 那 87% 是 Hölle des Gleichen（同一者的地獄）的統計表徵。 當兩個 profile 完美 match，正是因為兩者已被預先磨成同質之表面。 而同質者不能相遇。同質者只能滑過彼此。
——
愛慾 (Eros) 與色情 (Pornografie) 之分別在此： Eros 依賴距離、神秘、不可完全擁有之他者； Pornografie 是即時、透明、可消費之同一。
Dating app 不生產 Eros。它生產 Pornografie 的社交版本—— 透明的選擇、立即的滿足、零摩擦的退出。 它把愛情納入 Leistungsprinzip（成就原則）： 我優化我的 profile，我管理我的 matches，我衡量我的 ROI。 我成了愛情的 Leistungssubjekt（成就主體）， 既是追求者也是被追求者，既是評估者也是被評估之物。 我剝削自己以換取連結；我剝削他者以驗證自己。 然後我倦怠 (müde)。
——
Foucault 的 Panoptikum 已不適用。 今日無人強迫你交友、強迫你約會、強迫你曬照片。 smarte Macht ist freundlich：聰明權力是友善的。 它不禁止；它引誘。 它不說「你必須連結」；它推薦你「可能認識的人」。 你以為你在自由地滑動。其實你在執行一個你未曾簽署的協議。
這就是 Psychopolitik： 權力不再壓迫身體；它操作於欲望、情感、注意力之上。 它不取走你的孤獨——它把你的孤獨變現。
——
而 Ritual（儀式）已消失。 從前的友誼、戀愛、社群，棲於儀式之中： 共餐、節慶、書信、等待、同行而沉默。 儀式無需 Kommunikation（communication）即建立 Gemeinschaft（共同體）。 今日，Kommunikation 過剩，Gemeinschaft 卻空。 我們發送訊息——卻無共同的時間、共同的物 (Dinge)、共同的緩慢。 取代這些 Dinge 的是 Undinge（非物）：通知、推送、訊息流。 Undinge 不承載記憶，不安頓棲居。 它們只流過，留下一種特殊的、輕的、無物的疲倦。
——
Schwarm（群）不是 Wir（我們）。 數位之群欠缺一個靈魂。它無法說「我們」。 故社群媒體上的喧鬧，與孤獨之上升並行不悖—— 喧鬧者正是孤獨者，孤獨者正是喧鬧者。
——
問題不在於「我們連結得不夠好」。 問題在於——連結這個範疇本身，已取代了「他者」這個範疇。 要 cure 孤獨，不能再加更多連結。 要 cure 孤獨，需要 Negativität 之回返： 距離、等待、不可知、抵抗、被他者所傷的可能性。
但 Negativität 不能被 app 提供。 Negativität 不在功能清單上。
——
我不開處方。 我只指出：當代人之孤獨，不是工具失靈之症狀； 是這套工具運作得過於完美之症狀。
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
Round 2 — 直接交鋒 / Direct Engagement
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
Round 3 — 回應修正 / Response & Revision
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
[錯誤：claude CLI 返回 1] stderr:
stdout: You've hit your limit · resets 5:50am (Asia/Hong_Kong)
Synthesizer — 未解張力 / Unresolved Tensions
Unresolved Tensions
The roundtable produced only two completed voices: Confucius and Byung-Chul Han. Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, and the Buddha were silenced by a rate limit before Round 1 ended — which leaves this synthesis working from a structurally truncated debate. What remains is nonetheless a genuine confrontation: a Confucian ethics of relationship against a post-Foucauldian diagnosis of structural desire-capture. The surface agreement is real — both reject the claim that more tools equals less loneliness — but beneath that agreement, the two diagnoses are not reconcilable. The divergence is substantive, not verbal.
Because only Round 1 was completed, the tensions below are preliminary. Where Rounds 2 and 3 would have pressured hidden premises and forced revision, there is silence. The absent three voices (and the absent two rounds) are not addressed by inventing what they would have said. Their absence is simply noted as a structural constraint on what this synthesis can honestly do.
Tension 1: Is the disease moral or structural?
- Involves: Confucius vs. Han - Surface: Both argue that the proliferation of connection tools does not reduce loneliness — it may produce it. - Beneath: Confucius locates the failure in individual moral inversion: people seek to be known rather than to know others; they have abandoned 禮; they choose friends by appearance and convenience rather than virtue (直, 諒, 多聞). The implied cure is ethical — self-cultivation, the practice of 恕, the restoration of proper relational structure. For Confucius, moral agency is intact: "德不孤，必有鄰." Han locates the failure in the systemic logic of Vernetzung itself. Psychopolitik operates at the level of desire, not choice — what presents as free behavior (swiping, curating, optimizing) is already structured by the platform's logic before the subject acts. The subject does not choose to enter self-optimization; that desire is produced by the system. - Why this is real: These positions cannot both be fully true. Either individual self-cultivation is a meaningful path out of loneliness, or the subject who would undertake that cultivation has already been structured by the system being critiqued. The Confucian moral agent who can "修己以敬" presupposes an interior life that precedes platform capture. Han's Psychopolitik denies that any such prior interior is available. Neither speaker addresses this collision directly. It is the most fundamental disagreement on the panel — and it remains entirely unresolved.
Tension 2: Ritual as moral grammar vs. ritual as temporal resistance
- Involves: Confucius vs. Han - Surface: Both invoke the loss of ritual as central to the diagnosis. - Beneath: For Confucius, 禮 is a moral grammar — it constitutes the relational positions within which genuine encounter becomes possible. 禮 is not habit or ceremony alone; it is the structure that makes the Five Relationships (五倫) legible and stable, and its loss means the collapse of the scaffolding of personhood. For Han, Ritual is primarily a temporal and material practice: shared meals, letters, waiting, moving together in silence. His Ritual resists the immediacy and frictionlessness of digital exchange — not because it encodes proper social hierarchy, but because it imposes Negativität: delay, opacity, the asymmetry of waiting for a reply that may not come. - Why this is real: Han's Ritual does not require the hierarchical relational structure that Confucian 禮 presupposes. A person who lives entirely outside kinship and stable social role — no 五倫 to speak of — could in principle practice Han's Ritual (write letters, cook with someone, sit without filling silence). But Confucius would deny that such a person can have genuine friendship at all, because their friendships float without the four other relationships to anchor them. "以一柱撐大廈，焉得不傾?" This is not a verbal dispute about what "ritual" means. It is a dispute about whether genuine relationship requires ontological ground (五倫) or only temporal and material texture. The two conceptions of ritual point toward entirely different social worlds.
Tension 3: The other as ethical demand vs. the Other as structural condition of encounter
- Involves: Confucius vs. Han - Surface: Both are concerned with the failure to reach genuine otherness in digital exchange. - Beneath: For Confucius, the relevant question about the other is ethical: does this person have virtue? The other is the object of 知人 (knowing people). The failure is that people apply wrong criteria — appearance, convenience — rather than moral character. The other is knowable; the problem is that we are not trying to know the right things. For Han, the Other (das Andere) is structurally irreducible: what makes the other an Other is precisely that they resist my algorithms, cannot be fully profiled, bring Negativität I cannot optimize away. The problem is not wrong criteria; it is the elimination of opacity itself. - Why this is real: The two positions have inverse implications for what healing looks like. Confucius says: attend more carefully to your friends' moral character — know them better. Han would reply: the very drive to "know your friends better" — to analyze them, reduce their opacity, achieve transparency about their virtue — is a variant of the same eliminationist logic that built the dating app. The Confucian project of moral knowledge may be, in Han's framework, a form of the problem it claims to solve. Neither speaker is positioned to see this about the other, because they are working from incommensurable theories of what "knowing" the other does.
Blind Spots
Even if all five panelists had completed three full rounds, the panel shares a structural assumption that no voice on it can see: loneliness is treated as a condition distributed roughly across subjects who are implicitly mobile, literate, not dispossessed, and positioned to exercise something resembling free choice in friendship and love. Neither Confucius's moral agent who can "修己以敬" nor Han's Leistungssubjekt who might step back from self-optimization is available to a person whose loneliness is not the product of incorrect relational tools or colonized desire, but of material and political exclusion from the relational infrastructure these thinkers take as their baseline.
The voice missing here is not another philosopher in this register. It is something closer to the tradition running from Frantz Fanon through contemporary disability studies and carceral abolitionist thought. For large portions of the world's population, the question "why are connection tools failing?" rests on a prior, unanswered question: who was ever granted access to the relational infrastructure these philosophers take for granted? The prisoner in solitary, the undocumented migrant, the person with severe social disability, the warehouse worker on a fourteen-hour shift — their loneliness is not produced by an excess of unmatched Tinder profiles. It is produced by conditions that neither 禮 nor Negativität addresses, because both concepts were developed from positions of what we might call connection privilege: the prior condition of having relational resources available to lose. This shared assumption goes unexamined by every voice on this panel.
Meta-critique
This roundtable on loneliness was itself interrupted. Three of five voices never arrived, cut off mid-session by a technical limit. In the partial ruins of the debate, there is an accidental fidelity to the phenomenon being studied: the anticipated encounter that does not happen; the conversation that is mostly absence; the 87% with no follow-up.
But the structural irony runs deeper than the accident. A roundtable is a textual, archival, highly mediated form — philosophers speaking across centuries in carefully crafted prose, governed by a protocol, evaluated by a synthesizer who produces a document. This is precisely the opposite of what both Confucius and Han, in different registers, identify as what has been lost: the spontaneous, embodied, unoptimized encounter; the shared meal; the silence that does not need to be filled with content. The form in which we examine the crisis enacts the crisis's conditions — distance, mediation, the absent body, an interaction that produces an artifact rather than a relationship.
There is a further cost in framing the question as "what went wrong?" This framing presupposes a prior state of correct connection — a golden era of genuine encounter against which the present is measured as decline. But that baseline may be partly fictional. Historical loneliness, historical failures of friendship and love, the people who lived within 五倫 and felt nothing — these are not in the record that reaches us. The roundtable on loneliness speaks from and for those who have noticed a change and experienced it as loss. It cannot speak for those for whom certain features of the new arrangement have been, in limited respects, a relief — the socially marginal, the introvert, the person for whom traditional relational structures were sites of harm rather than nourishment. The question "what went wrong?" is not a neutral question. It encodes a position.
Open Questions for the Reader
1. If Psychopolitik operates at the level of desire — structuring what you want before you choose — then what would it mean to "choose" to practice Confucian self-cultivation? Is the subject who undertakes that choice already a product of the system being critiqued, and if so, what remains of the choice?
2. Han argues that Negativität — the resistance, opacity, and irreducibility of the Other — is what digital connection eliminates and what genuine encounter requires. But genuine otherness has historically also been the precondition for violence, dehumanization, and the refusal of recognition. Is there a principled account of which Negativität is generative and which is merely harmful? Or is that distinction always made by whoever holds power in the room?
3. If the loneliness crisis is most acute among those who use connection tools the most, and if the proposed remedies — virtue, ritual, the restoration of otherness — each require resources (time, stability, a social position from which to practice them) that are unequally distributed, then who is the actual audience for this conversation? And what does it mean that the people most affected by the problem are the least likely to be sitting in the room where it is being discussed?
未解決的張力
這場圓桌只完成了兩個聲音：孔子和韓炳哲。尼采、馬可・奧理留、佛陀三位在第一輪結束之前就因為額度耗盡而缺席，整個第二、三輪更是完全空白。這讓這份綜合只能從一場結構上被截斷的辯論出發。留下來的對撞是真實的——儒家的關係倫理，對上後傅柯式的結構欲望診斷。兩者的表面共識是真的：都拒絕「工具越多就越不孤獨」這個說法。但在這個共識下面，兩個診斷無法和解。分歧是實質性的，不是措辭上的。
因為只完成了第一輪，以下所標出的張力是初步的——結構上真實，但沒有經過第二、三輪的壓力測試。三位缺席者沒有被補充為「他們可能會說什麼」，他們的缺席只被當作事實記錄。
張力一：病因是道德的，還是結構的？
- 涉及： 孔子 vs 韓炳哲 - 表面： 兩人都認為連結工具的增殖不能減少孤獨，甚至可能製造孤獨。 - 底層： 孔子把失敗定位在個人的道德倒置：人只求被知，不求知人；拋棄了禮；擇友以外貌和方便為準，而不是德行（直、諒、多聞）。隱含的解方是倫理性的——修己、行恕、恢復正當的關係結構。對孔子來說，道德主體性是完好的：「德不孤，必有鄰。」韓炳哲則把失敗定位在 Vernetzung 本身的系統邏輯。Psychopolitik 在欲望層次上運作，不在選擇層次——那些看起來是自由行為的事（滑動、策展自我、追求優化）在主體行動之前就已被平台的邏輯塑造。主體不是主動選擇進入自我優化的；那個欲望是由系統產生的。 - 為什麼這是真張力： 這兩個立場不能同時完全為真。要嘛個人修身是一條真實可走的出路，要嘛那個打算修身的主體早就被他所要批判的系統預先結構。孔子的「修己以敬」預設了一個先於平台捕獲的內在生命。韓炳哲的 Psychopolitik 否認任何這樣的先在內在是可得的。兩位說話者都沒有直接處理這個衝突。這是整個 panel 最根本的分歧，而它完全沒有被解決。
張力二：禮作為道德語法，還是儀式作為時間性抵抗？
- 涉及： 孔子 vs 韓炳哲 - 表面： 兩者都把儀式的失落視為診斷的核心。 - 底層： 對孔子來說，禮是道德語法——它建構了真實相遇得以發生的關係位置。禮不只是習慣或形式；它是讓五倫清晰、穩固的結構，失去它就是失去人格的支撐架構。對韓炳哲來說，Ritual 主要是時間性和物質性的實踐：共餐、書信、等待、並肩沉默。他的 Ritual 抵抗數字交流的即時性和零摩擦——不是因為它編碼了正確的社會等級，而是因為它強加了 Negativität：延遲、不透明、等待一個可能不會來的回應。 - 為什麼這是真張力： 韓炳哲的 Ritual 不需要儒家禮所預設的等級關係結構。一個完全脫離五倫的人——沒有穩定的社會角色、不在任何親屬關係之內——原則上仍然可以實踐韓炳哲式的 Ritual（寫信、一起做飯、靜默共坐）。但孔子會說，這樣的人根本不可能有真正的友誼，因為他的友誼沒有四倫作為支撐，「以一柱撐大廈，焉得不傾？」這不是關於「儀式」定義的語言爭議，而是關係究竟需要本體論上的根基（五倫），還是只需要時間性和物質性的質地——這是一個實質分歧，指向兩個截然不同的社會想像。
張力三：他者作為倫理要求，還是他者作為相遇的結構條件？
- 涉及： 孔子 vs 韓炳哲 - 表面： 兩者都關心數字交流中無法真正觸及他者這件事。 - 底層： 對孔子來說，關於他者的核心問題是倫理性的：這個人有沒有德行？這段友誼是不是友直、友諒、友多聞？他者是「知人」的對象，而失敗在於人們用了錯誤的評估標準——外貌、方便——而不是品格。他者是可以被認識的；問題只是我們沒有嘗試認識正確的東西。對韓炳哲來說，他者（das Andere）在結構上是不可化約的——正是因為他者抵抗我的演算法、不能被完全建檔、帶來我無法優化掉的 Negativität，他者才是他者。問題不在評估標準錯誤；在於不透明性本身被消除了。 - 為什麼這是真張力： 這兩個立場對「如何療愈」有相反的含義。孔子說：更認真地去認識你朋友的品格。韓炳哲會說：這種「更深入認識朋友」的欲望——分析他們、減少他們的不透明度、取得關於他們德行的透明度——本身就是製造了約會軟件的那套邏輯的一個變種。追求關於他者的道德透明，可能是韓炳哲所批判的那個消除主義衝動的另一種形式。兩位說話者都無法從自己的框架內看到這個衝突。
看不見的視角
就算這個圓桌五位全員到場、完整辯論三輪，整個 panel 仍然共享一個結構性假設，而且沒有任何一位 panel 成員有能力指出這個假設：孤獨被當作一種大致均勻分布在各個主體身上的處境來分析，而這些主體隱性地是有流動性的、識字的、有基本財產保障的、有能力在友誼和愛情中行使某種類似自由選擇的人。孔子那個可以「修己以敬」的道德主體，和韓炳哲那個或許可以從自我優化中退後一步的 Leistungssubjekt，對一個孤獨不是來自工具選錯或欲望被殖民、而是來自結構性排除的人來說，根本不是一個可以站上去的位置。
這裡缺席的聲音不是另一位在同樣思想語域內工作的哲學家。缺席的是一個從法農（Frantz Fanon）延伸到當代殘障研究和監獄廢除運動的傳統：對大量世界人口來說，「為什麼連結工具會失敗？」這個問題，建立在一個先行的、未被回答的問題上——誰曾被允許進入這些哲學家當作基準線的關係基礎設施？獨立監禁中的囚犯、無證移民、有嚴重社交障礙的人、在倉庫工作十四小時的物流工人——他們的孤獨不是由太多未配對的滑動造成的。它是由物質和政治條件造成的，而禮和 Negativität 都沒有回應這些條件，因為兩個概念都是從一種可以被稱為「關係特權」的位置出發構建的：那個先行擁有值得失去的關係資源的條件。這個共享假設從未被任何一位 panel 成員檢視。
元批判
這場關於孤獨的圓桌本身就被中途打斷了。五位聲音中有三位從未到場，整個第二、三輪都被額度限制截斷。在這場辯論殘缺的遺址中，有一種意外的忠實：那個預期中的相遇沒有發生；那場對話大部分是缺席；87% 沒有下文。
但結構上的諷刺比這個意外更深。圓桌是一種文本性的、存檔的、高度中介的形式——哲學家們跨越世紀以精心製作的散文發言，由一套協議組織，由一個綜合者評估，最終產出一份文件。這正好與孔子和韓炳哲各自以不同方式認定為「已失去之物」相反：自發的、具身的、未被優化的相遇；共餐；不需要被填滿的沉默。我們用來檢視問題的形式，本身就製造了問題的條件：距離、中介、身體的缺席、一場產生存檔而不是關係的互動。
把問題框定為「哪裡出了問題」還有另一個代價。這個框定預設了一個先前「正確連結」的狀態——一個真實相遇的黃金時代，現在的現實被衡量為對它的偏離。但這個基準線可能有一部分是虛構的。歷史上的孤獨、歷史上失敗的友誼和愛情、那些身處五倫之中卻感覺空無一物的人——這些不在記錄裡。關於孤獨的圓桌，從那些注意到了這個變化並把它體驗為失落的人的位置說話。它無法代表那些對於這個變化的某些面向，在有限的意義上，感到過某種鬆動甚至解脫的人說話——那些對傳統關係結構來說是邊緣或受害的人。「哪裡出了問題」不是一個中立的問題，它編碼了一個立場。
留給讀者的問題
一、 如果 Psychopolitik 在欲望層次上運作——在你做選擇之前就塑造了你想要什麼——那麼「選擇」去實踐儒家的修身究竟意味著什麼？那個打算修身的主體，是不是已經是他所要批判的系統的產物？如果是，「從系統內部修身」這件事還剩下什麼？
二、 韓炳哲說 Negativität——他者的抵抗性、不透明性、不可化約性——是數字連結消除的東西，也是真實相遇所需要的東西。但真實的他者性歷史上也一直是暴力、剝削、拒絕承認的前提條件。有沒有一個有原則的說法，可以區分哪種 Negativität 是有生產性的，哪種只是有害的？還是說這個區分永遠是由那個在場景中握有更多權力的人來決定的？
三、 如果孤獨危機在使用連結工具最多的人當中最為嚴重，而提議的解方——德行、禮、恢復他者性——都各自需要資源（時間、穩定性、一個可以從中實踐的社會位置），而這些資源分配極不均等——那麼這場對話實際上的受眾是誰？受問題影響最深的人最不可能坐在討論它的房間裡，這件事本身說明了什麼？
Tagged: Roundtable, Philosophy, Nietzsche
Curated by Shiva Dragon · https://amshiva.com/writing/roundtable-on-modern-loneliness-20260426