Classification is a kind of human cognitive abilities. We are prone to sort out everything we see, hear, smell, taste and touch, such as classing willow, poplar, ginkgo and oak as trees; lotus, chrysanthemum, peony and wintersweet as flowers; monkey, zebra, tiger and snake as animals; piano, violin, trumpet and flute as instruments; hamburger, sandwich, cheese and bread as food. As there are hundreds of thousands of phenomena in the world and we humans are too limited in time, energy and wisdom to study them one by one, the most convenient and pragmatic way to explore the nature of everything and thereupon put them at the service of us is to research categories into which everything is arranged instead.
归类是人类认识能力当中的一种，我们倾向于将自己看到的、听到的、闻到的、尝到的和触摸到的归为不同的类，例如将柳树、杨树、银杏树和橡树归为树类；将荷花、菊花、牡丹花和腊梅归为花类；将猴子、斑马、老虎和蛇归为动物类；将钢琴、小提琴、小号和长笛归为乐器类；将汉堡包、三明治、奶酪和面包归为食物类。鉴于这个世界上有成千上万种现象，我们人类因为时间、精力和智慧太有限而无法逐一对它们进行研究，所以探究每件事物的本质，并进而让它们为我们人类所用最便捷和实用的方式，就是退而求其次地对其分门别类地进行研究。
As everything around us must be arranged into some categories, we human beings ought to be naturally put into a class. In spite of the fact that people vary widely in race, physique, disposition, education, occupation and background, scientists still tried to abstract some specific commonalities, also known as human nature, from finite samples via observation and experiment, (for instance, incentive mechanism can strengthen the behavior while punishment can weaken it; everyone is thirst for respect and approval from people around him, a man is apt to be depressed and look down upon himself when he is constantly rejected; maternal love is universal, almost every mother set her child’s life before hers, if necessary, she can even die for her darling), and make further efforts to help politicians initiate policies to manage and control 5 billion people around the world with only a few criteria.
既然我们身边的每件东西都可以被归为某一类，那我们人类也应该被自然而然地归为某一类，尽管人与人之间在种族、体格、气质、教育、职业和成长环境等因素上存在诸多差异，但是科学家仍然试图通过观察和实验从有限的样本中抽象出一些具体的共性，也被称之为人性，（例如，激励机制能够强化人的行为，而惩罚机制则能弱化人的行为；所有人都渴望得到别人的尊重和认可，如果他总是被拒绝的话就会产生抑郁情绪并进而轻视自己；母爱是普遍存在的，几乎每一个母亲都将自己孩子的生命看得比自己还重，在必要时甚至能为了自己的心肝宝贝去死），并进而试图通过仅仅有限的几条准则就为政治家拟定出管理和控制全世界五十亿人口的政策。
The philosophers making reasonable assumptions on human nature throughout history are too numerous to mention, the following are the most important ones: Marx believed the essence of man is the sum total of all social relations; Freud regarded the nature of man as the primitive impulses and instinctive desires in the unconsciousness guided by happiness and satisfaction; Aristotle saw men as born political animals; Schopenhauer considered human nature as a kind of will to live; Christians believed that every human being is born with original sin, therefore the meaning of earthly life is to atone for it and reconcile with God. In spite of theories mentioned above, a school of thought holds that humans are not a species and thus by no means has a thing called the essence of man: if “the sum total of all social relations” can be seen as human nature, a solitary man is definitely not to be regarded as a human being; if “to win respect and approval from people around you” is deemed available to every man, how can you interpret a monk’s psychology? If, like Freud, you treat human and animal as equals and admit that every human being lives according to his instinctive desires, can you tell me why there are countless martyrs and ascetics through the ages?
古往今来对人性做出了合理假设的哲学家不胜枚举，现列举最重要的几位如下：马克思认为人的本质就是一切社会关系的总和；弗洛伊德将人性看作是一种以快乐和满足为原则的无意识的原始冲动和本能欲望；亚里士多德认为人天生就是政治的动物；叔本华认为人的天性是一种生存意志；基督教认为每个人生来就有原罪，因此人生现世的意义就在于赎罪，并与上帝达成和解，尽管哲学家们众说纷纭，却有一派哲学家认为人不能被归于某一个种属，因而也没有一个能称之为人性的东西：如果“一切社会关系的总和”可以被看作是人性，那么离群索居者必定不能被当作是人类；如果“得到身边人的尊重和认可”这一信条对每个人都有效，那么和尚的心理又该如何解释？如果如弗洛伊德所说，你可以将人类跟动物划等号，并承认每个人都靠着本能欲望过活，那你能告诉我为什么古往今来有那么多的殉道者和苦行僧吗？
If it is incumbent upon someone to argue with me that mankind, as it could be counted as a species, has an essence, after all, my theory is not so convincing and simple as 1+1=2, then I’m so sorry to tell him that despite the fact that everything around us, known as object, can be sorted into some categories, mankind, known as subject, is an exception. You are probably to argue that according to Darwin, man evolved from lower animals and as a result acquired some characteristics of them. But actually, there is some fundamental change happened to mankind at the very moment of its evolution. Mankind is such a special being that it has nothing in common with anything else in the world, and none of us can make an universal judgment upon it. In my viewpoint, everyone is born a seed with any possibilities. As time went by, it will sprout and grow into something as totally different from its kind as it is between oak, stone, lotus and cat. Can you treat Qin Hui and Yue Fei as equals? Can you say Eugenie Grandet and Bill Gates are the same in kind? Who can interpret Nero’s tyranny in the light of human nature? If they are of the same kind, why did Robespierre bring Louis XVI to the scaffold? Perhaps most people prefer to divide humans arbitrarily into several types, then there must be a kind of incommensurability between them. That is to say, a man’s essence has already been determined when the a seed has grown up into a giant tree, it can't be changed into another one of distant relationship. Different kinds of people, if get them together, must stand up for their own values and dispute with each other without stop. The best way to settle it, instead of assimilate one kind into another, is to part them and tell your dissidents “you look after your own concern and leave me to my own affairs”.
如果有人非得跟我争辩人类作为一个种属必定有一个本质，毕竟我的理论不如1+1=2那般简单且有说服力，那我只能遗憾地告诉他：尽管我们周围的一切，也称作客体，都能被归入某一类，人类，也称作主体，却是个例外，你可能会争辩道根据达尔文的观点，人类是从低等动物进化而来，并因此具备了动物的某些特征，但事实上，在动物进化为人的那一刻，人类的身上发生了某种质的变化，人类是一种如此特别的存在以至于他跟世界上任何其他的东西没有一丝一毫地相似之处，没有人能给人类做一个全称判断。在我看来，每个人生来只是一粒具有任何一种可能性的种子，随着时间的演进，它将会发芽并成长为一个与自己同类大相径庭、截然不同的东西，其差异的程度就好比橡树、石头、莲花和猫之间的差别，话说你能把秦桧和岳飞看作是同类吗？你能说欧也妮葛朗台跟比尔盖茨是一类人吗？谁能用人性解释尼禄的暴政？如果说罗伯斯庇尔和路易十六是同类，那么后者为何要将前者送上断头台？或许大多数人偏向于将人分为不同的类型，那么不同种类的人之间就具有不可通约性，换句话说，一旦一粒种子长成了一颗参天大树，一个人的本质也就被决定了，它不可能被转变为关系较远的另一种类型，如果把不同类型的人聚在一起，他们必定会因维护各自的价值观而争论不休，解决问题最好的方式不是将一类同化为另一类，而是天各一方，你走你的阳关道，我走我的独木桥。
Speaking of human nature, we have to mention collectivism. Collectivism presupposed the essence of man and, take it as a starting point, imposed its rules and regulations upon everyone within the environment without exception. The whole process likes raising pigs, as everyone of them doesn’t have any difference with its kind, the keepers are able to take care of everybody as long as they have examined the kind carefully and plan everything in line with the instincts and habits of the kind. Which nature is a collectivist prone to think human beings have? Appetite, sexual desire, self-respect and a sense of security. Although “self-indulgence leads to degeneration and crime” is an irrefutable fact, most people are so rational as to get a job for themselves, create wealth with their hands and in this way get material rewards at their disposal. One can do whatever he wants as long as he has the money. As to his sexual needs, a man have to start a family and take responsibility for bringing up his child. Sexuality must have something to do with reproduction, it is discouraged by any collectivist if it is merely for amusement. The operation mode of collectivistic society is just founded on these hypothesis, if you want to be regarded as a normal man and win respect from people around you, you need to regard them as golden rules, or you might be treated as an outcast and excluded from the circle of normal people.
要说到人性，就不得不提集体主义，集体主义预设了人性，并以此为出发点，将它的条条框框无一例外地强加在身处其中的每个人身上，整个过程就好比是养猪，因为每只猪跟它的同类没有任何区别，因此只要饲养员仔细研究猪这个种属并依照此种属的本能和习性拟定计划，他就能照顾好其中的每一位成员，集体主义者会认为人类具备哪些天性呢？食欲、性欲、自尊心和安全感，尽管“纵欲会导致堕落和犯罪”是一个不争的事实，但是绝大多数有正常思维能力的人偏向于找份工作、用他们的双手创造财富并由此而得到任由自己支配的物质回报，有了钱一个人就能做任何自己想做的事。至于性欲嘛，一个人必须组建家庭并承担起抚养孩子的责任，性欲必须跟生育联系在一起，纯粹取乐的性欲是任何一个集体主义者所不提倡的。集体主义社会的运作模式正是建立在此种假设之上，如果你想被当作一个正常人并赢得周围人的尊重，你就必须将这些教条奉为金科玉律，否则你就会被当作异类而排斥出正常人的圈子。
In a sense, this hypothesis of human nature is an inextricable part of the enlightenment thoughts and Adam Smith’s classical economics. The eternal theme of the Enlightenment is reason and freedom. To react against the medieval philosophy that human desires are evil and everyone has to repent and abandon them, enlightening thinkers made an assumption that a portion of human desires are reasonable. It is deemed inadvisable only when a human being resorts to some illegal and immoral means to achieve them. In contrast, a man sells his labor for material reward by which he satisfy his needs is deemed acceptable. On the other hand, Adam Smith’s theory holds that in a state with perfect legal system, an egoistic human being who needs money for his wants has to find a job and contribute to the society, since there is no other means to get it legally. In this way, the more material rewards one gains, the more he contributes to the society. The nation will create maximum wealth as long as everyone within it is selfish, avaricious and find some legal way to fulfill it.
从某种意义上说，这种关于人性的假设跟启蒙思想和亚当斯密的古典经济学密不可分，启蒙运动永恒的主题就是理性和自由，为了反抗中世纪将人的欲望看作是恶的并应因此而悔罪和放弃欲望，启蒙思想家假设了人的一部分欲望是合理的，唯一不可取的是人类诉诸非法和不道德的手段去满足他的欲望，相较之下，一个人出卖自己的劳动力去换取物质回报，进而以此来满足自己的欲望则被看作是可取的。另一方面，亚当斯密的理论认为在一个法制健全的国家里，自私利己、需要钱去满足自己欲望的人在没有其他合法的手段能搞到钱的情况下，只能找份工作并为社会贡献自己的价值，当一个人得到的物质回报越多，他对社会的贡献也就越大，只要身处国家之中的每一个人都是自私和贪得无厌的，并循着某种合法的方式去满足它，一个国家就能创造出最大的财富。
I was grown up in a collectivistic environment. Because I have very little in common with the shiftless, undistinguished majority, I have long since been seen as an outcast and driven out of the group of normal men. It pains me to think that everybody else is normal, whereas I am morbid. When I was rejected and marginalized at an early age, I felt myself being humbled to nothingness and even subjectively worse than a beggar. With the enrichment of my knowledge and life experience, I realized that although humans inherited instincts and desires from lower animals, (if Darwin’s theory of evolution is true), they are more than any animals. It is undeniable that appetite and sexual desire are the utmost driving force of the vast majority to survive, yet none of us can thus make an universal judgment to say that human beings live to satisfy these needs. Even if those ones study definitely not for fame and gain are few and far between, this kind of people do exist in real life; shiftless ones are the overwhelming majority, they can’t speak for everyone. Nobody could have denied that I can also live a wonderful life even if I was treated as an outsider. In my eyes, They are much more close to animals, whereas it is me who truly embodied the indispensable factors of a man: a kind of spiritual enrichment kept at all times.
我就成长在一个集体主义的环境当中，因为我跟那些做一天和尚撞一天钟、碌碌无为的绝大多数人没有任何共同之处，所以我在很早以前就被他们视为异类并被排挤出正常人的圈子之外，当我一想到所有人都很正常，只有我自己有毛病的时候就感到很痛苦，幼年时当我遭到拒绝、被所有人边缘化的时候，我感觉自己卑微的一文不值，甚至在主观上连一个乞丐都比我要强，但是随着我知识和阅历的不断增长，我意识到尽管人类从低等动物那里继承了本能和欲望，（如果达尔文的进化论是真的），但是人类远比动物要强得多。不可否认，食欲和性欲是绝大多数人生存的最大动力，但是没有人能因此下一个全称判断，说人活着就是为了满足各种欲望，即便那些抛弃了功名利禄做学问的人凤毛麟角，这类人的确存在；尽管得过且过的人占压倒性的绝大多数，但他们不能代表所有人，谁也不能否认即便我被视为一个局外人也能活出精彩的人生，在我看来，他们更接近于动物，而相较之下只有我才能体现出人之为人所必备的要素：时刻保持着一种精神上的充实感。
When I changed my way of thinking, I felt much more relieved. And that is my viewpoint of human nature.
当我转变了思维方式以后，立马就感到释然了，这就是我对人性的理解。