Or maybe you did always want to be a cardiac surgeon. You dreamed about it from the time you were 10 years old, even though you had no idea what it really meant, and you stayed on course for the entire time you were in school. You refused to be enticed from your path by that great experience you had in AP history, or that trip you took to Costa Rica the summer afteryour junior year in college, or that terrific feeling you got taking care of kids when you did your rotation in pediatrics during your fourth year in medical school.
（也许你确实想当心脏病学家。十岁时就梦想成 为医生，即使你根本不知道医生意味着什么。你在上学期间全身心都在朝着这个目标前进。你拒绝了上大学预修历史课时的美妙体验的诱惑，也无视你在医学院第四年的儿科学轮流值班时照看孩子的可怕感受。）

But either way, either because you went with the flow or because you set your course very early, you wake up one day, maybe 20 years later, and you wonder what happened: how you got there, what it all means. Not what it means in the 'big picture,' whatever that is, but what it means to you. Why you're doing it, what it's all for. It sounds like a cliché, this 'waking up one day,' but it's called having a midlife crisis, and it happens to people all the time.
（但不管是什么，要么因为你随大流要么因为你早就选定了道路，20年后某天醒来，你或许会纳闷到底发生了什么：你怎么变成现在这个样子，这一切意味着什么。不是它是什么，不在于它是否“大画面”而是它对你意味着什么。你为什么做它，到底为了什么。这听起来像老生常谈，但这个被称为中年危机的“有一天醒来”一直就发生在每个人身上。）

There is an alternative, however, and it may be one thathasn't occurred to you. Let me try to explain it by telling you a story about one of your peers, and the alternative that hadn't occurred to her. A couple of years ago, I participated in a panel discussion at Harvard that dealt with some of these same matters, and afterward I was contacted by one of the students who had come to the event, a young woman who was writing her senior thesis about Harvard itself, how it instills in its students what she called self-efficacy, the sense that you can do anything you want. Self-efficacy, or, in more familiar terms, self-esteem. There are some kids, she said, who get an A on a test and say, 'I got it because it was easy.' And there are other kids, the kind with self-efficacy or self-esteem, who get an A on a test and say, 'I got it because I'm smart.'

（不过，还有另外一种情况，或许中年危机并不会发生在你身上。让我通过告诉你们一个同伴的故事来解释我的意思吧，即她没有遭遇的情况。几年前，我在哈佛参加了一次小组讨论会，谈到这些问题。后来参加这次讨论的一个学生给我联系，这个哈佛学生正在写有关哈佛的毕业论文，讨论哈佛是如何给学生灌输她所说的“自我效能”（self-efficacy），一种相信自己能做一切的意识。自我效能或更熟悉的说法‘自我尊重’。她说在考试中得了优秀的有些学生会说“我得优秀是因为试题很简单。”）

Again, there's nothing wrong with thinking that you got an A because you're smart. But what that Harvard student didn't realize—and it was really quite a shock to her when I suggested it—is that there is a third alternative. True self-esteem, I proposed, means not caring whether you get an A in the first place. True self-esteem means recognizing, despite everything that your upbringing has trained you to believe about yourself, that the grades you get—and the awards, and the test scores, and the trophies, and the acceptance letters—are not what defines who you are.
（但另外一些学生，那种具有自我效能感或自我尊重的学生在考试中得了优秀后会说“我得优秀是因为我聪明。” 再次，认为得了优秀是因为自己聪明的想法并没有任何错，不过，哈佛学生没有认识到的是他们没有第三种选择。当我指出这一点时，她十分震惊。我指出，真正的自尊意味着最初根本就不在乎成绩是否优秀。真正的自尊意味着承认你取得的成绩，虽然你在成长过程中的一切都在训练你相信自己，但奖励、成绩、奖品、录取通知书等所有这一切都不能来定义你是谁。）

She also claimed, this young woman, that Harvard students take their sense of self-efficacy out into the world and become, as she put it, 'innovative.' But when I asked her what she meant by innovative, the only example she could come up with was 'being CEO of a Fortune 500.' That's not innovative, I told her, that's just successful, and successful according to a very narrow definition of success. True innovation means using your imagination, exercising the capacity to envision new possibilities.
（她还说，这个年轻的女孩子说哈佛学生把他们的自我效能带到了世界上，如她所说的“创新”（innovative）。 但当我问她“创新”意味着什么时，她能够想到的唯一例子不过是“世界大公司五百强的首席执行官。”我告诉她这不是创新，这只是成功，而且是根据非常狭隘的成功定义而认定的成功而已。真正的创新意味着使用你的想象力，发挥你的潜力，创造新的可能性。）

But I'm not here to talk about technological innovation, I'm here to talk about a different kind. It's not about inventing a new machine or a new drug. It's about inventing your own life. Not following a path, but making your own path. The kind of imagination I'm talking about is moral imagination. 'Moral' meaning not right or wrong, but having to do with making choices. Moral imagination means the capacity to envision new ways to live your life.
（但这里我并不是在谈论技术创新，不是发明新机器或者制造一种新药，我谈论的是另外一种创新，是创造你自己的生活。不是走现成的道路而是创造一条属于自己的道路。我谈论的想象力是道德想象力。“道德”在这里不是对与错，而是与选择有关。道德想象力【也就是“道可道，非恒道”中的道】意味着创造自己新生的能力。）

It means not just going with the flow. It means not just 'getting into' whatever school or program comes next. It means figuring out what you want for yourself, not what your parents want, or your peers want, or your school wants, or your society wants. Originating your own values. Thinking your way toward your own definition of success. Not simply accepting the life that you've been handed. Not simply accepting the choices you've been handed. When you walk into Starbucks, you're offered a choice among a latte and a macchiato and an espresso and a few other things, but you can also make another choice. You can turn around and walk out. When you walk into college, you are offered a choice among law and medicine and investment banking and consulting and a few other things, but again, you can also do something else, something that no one has thought of before.

（它意味着不随波逐流，不是下一步要“进入”什么名牌大学或研究生院。 而是要弄清楚自己到底想要什么，而不是父母、同伴、学校、或社会想要什么。即确认你自己的价值观，思考迈向自己所定义的成功的道路，而不仅仅是接受别人给你的生活，不仅仅是接受别人给你的选择。当今走进星巴克咖啡馆，服务员可能让你在牛奶咖啡（latte）、加糖咖啡（macchiato）、特制咖啡（espresso）等几样东西之间做出选择。但你可以做出另外的选择，你可以转身走出去。当你进入大学，人家给你众多选择，或法律或医学或投资银行和咨询以及其他，但你同样也可以做其他事，做从前根本没有人想过的事。）

Let me give you another counter example. I wrote an essay a couple of years ago that touched on some of these same points. I said, among other things, that kids at places like Yale or Stanford tend to play it safe and go for the conventional rewards. And one of the most common criticisms I got went like this: What about Teach for America? Lots of kids from elite colleges go and do TFA after they graduate, so therefore I was wrong. TFA, TFA—I heard that over and over again. And Teach for America is undoubtedly a very good thing. But to cite TFA in response to my argument is precisely to miss the point, and to miss it in a way that actually confirms what I'm saying. The problem with TFA—or rather, the problem with the way that TFA has become incorporated into the system—is that it's just become another thing to get into.

（让我再举一个反面的例子。几年前我写过一篇涉及同类问题的文章。我说，那些在耶鲁和斯坦福这类名校的孩子往往比较谨慎，去追求一些稳妥的奖励。我得到的最常见的批评是：教育项目“为美国而教”（Teach for America）如何？从名校出来的很多学生毕业后很多参与这个教育项目，因此我的观点是错误的。我一再听到TFA这个术语。“为美国而教”当然是好东 西，但引用这个项目来反驳我的观点恰恰是不得要领，实际上正好证明了我想说的东西。“为美国而教”的问题或者“为美国而教”已经成为体系一部分的问题是它已经成为另外一个需要“进入”的门槛。）

In terms of its content, Teach for America is completely different from Goldman Sachs or McKinsey or Harvard Medical School or Berkeley Law, but in terms of its place within the structure of elite expectations, of elite choices, it is exactly the same. It's prestigious, it's hard to get into, it's something that you and your parents can brag about, it looks good on your résumé, and most important, it represents a clearly marked path. You don't have to make it up yourself, you don't have to do anything but apply and do the work —just like college or law school or McKinsey or whatever. It's the Stanford or Harvard of social engagement. It's another hurdle, another badge. It requires aptitude and diligence, but it does not require a single ounce of moral imagination.

（从其内容来看，“为美国而教”完全不同于高盛或者麦肯锡公司或哈佛医学院或者伯克利法学院，但从它在精英期待的体系中的地位来说，完全是一样的。它享有盛名，很难进入，是值得你和父母夸耀的东西，如果写在简历上会很光彩，最重要的是，它代表了清晰标记的道路。你根本不用自己创造，什么都不用做，只需申请然后按要求做就行了，就像上大学或法学院或麦肯锡公司或别的什么。它是社会参与方面的斯坦福或哈佛，是另一个栅栏，另一枚奖章。该项目需要能力和勤奋，但不需要一丁点儿的道德想象力 。）

Moral imagination is hard, and it's hard in a completely different way than the hard things you're used to doing. And not only that, it's not enough. If you're going to invent your own life, if you're going to be truly autonomous, you also need courage: moral courage. The courage to act on your values in the face of what everyone's going to say and do to try to make you change your mind. Because they're not going to like it. Morally courageous individuals tend to make the people around them very uncomfortable. They don't fit in with everybodyelse's ideas about the way the world is supposed to work, and still worse, they make them feel insecure about the choices that they themselves have made—or failed to make. People don't mind being in prison as long as no one else is free. But stage a jailbreak, and everybody else freaks out.

（道德想象力是困难的，这种困难与你已经习惯的困难完全不同。 不仅如此，光有道德想象力还不够。如果你要创造自己的生活，如果你想成为真正的独立思想者，你还需要勇气：道德勇气【也就是求道的勇气】。不管别人说什么，有按自己的价值观行动的勇气，不会因为别人不喜欢而试图改变自己的想法。具有道德勇气的个人往往让周围的人感到不舒服。他们和其他人对世界的看法格格不入，更糟糕的是，让别人对自己已经做出的选择感到不安全或无法做出选择。只要别人也不享受自由，人们就不在乎自己被关进监狱。可一旦有人越狱，其他人都会跟着跑出去。）

In A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce has Stephen Dedalus famously say, about growing up in Ireland in the late 19th century, 'When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets.'
（在《青年艺术家的肖像》中，詹姆斯•乔伊斯（James Joyce）让主人公斯蒂芬•迪达勒斯（Stephen Dedalus）就19世纪末期的爱尔兰的成长环境说出了如下名言“当一个人的灵魂诞生在这个国家时，有一张大网把它罩住，防止它飞翔。你会给我谈论民族性、语言和宗教。我想冲出这些牢笼。”）

Today there are other nets. One of those nets is a term that I've heard again and again as I've talked with students about these things. That term is 'self-indulgent.' 'Isn't it self-indulgent to try to live the life of the mind when there are so many other things I could be doing with my degree?' 'Wouldn't it be self-indulgent to pursue painting after I graduate instead of getting a real job?'
（今天，我们面临的是其他的网。其中之一是我在就这些问题与学生交流时经常听到的一个术语“自我放任”。“在攻读学位过程中有这么多事要做的时候，试图按照自己的感觉生活难道不是自我放任吗？”“毕业后不去找个真正的工作而去画画难道不是自我放任吗？”）

These are the kinds of questions that young people find themselves being asked today if they even think about doing something a little bit different. Even worse, the kinds of questions they are made to feel compelled to ask themselves. Many students have spoken to me, as they navigated their senior years, about the pressure they felt from their peers—from their peers—to justify a creative or intellectual life. You're made to feel like you're crazy: crazy to forsake the sure thing, crazy to think it could work, crazy to imagine that you even have a right to try.
（这些是年轻人只要思考一下稍稍出格的事就不由自主地质问自己的问题。更糟糕的是，他们觉得 提出这些问题是理所应当的。许多学生在毕业前夕的未来探索中跟我说，他们感受到来自同伴那里的压力，需要为创造性的生活或思想生活辩护。好像自己已经走火入魔了似的：抛弃确定无疑的东西是疯了，认为思想生活可行是疯了，想象你有权尝试是疯了。）

Think of what we've come to. It is one of the great testaments to the intellectual—and moral, and spiritual—poverty of American society that it makes its most intelligent young people feel like they're being self-indulgent if they pursue their curiosity. You are all told that you're supposed to go to college, but you're also told that you're being 'self-indulgent' if you actually want to get an education. Or even worse, give yourself one. As opposed to what? Going into consulting isn't self-indulgent? Going into finance isn't self-indulgent? Going into law, like most of the people who do, in order to make yourself rich, isn't self-indulgent? It's not OK to play music, or write essays, because what good does that really do anyone, but it is OK to work for a hedge fund. It's selfish to pursue your passion, unless it's also going to make you a lot of money, in which case it's not selfish at all.

（想象我们现在面临的局面。这是美国社会的贫困---思想、道德和精神贫困的最明显症状，美国最聪明的年轻人竟然认为听从自己的好奇心行动就是自我放任。你们得到的教导是应该上大学，但你们同时也被告知如果真的想得到教育，那就是“自我放任”。如果你自我教育的话，更糟糕。这是什么道理？进入证券咨询业是不是自我放任？进入金融业是不是自我放任？像许多人那样进入律师界发财是不是自我放任？搞音乐，写文章就不行，因为它不能给人带来利益。但为风险投资公司工作就可以。追求自己的理想和激情是自私的，除非它能让你赚很多钱。那样的话，就一点儿也不自私了。）