这篇影评可能有剧透 社会越来越卷，00后整顿职场，996福报论甚嚣尘上…… 不敢生育、不敢休息成为了打工人的共识，工作与生活平衡更成了一种奢望。 面对节奏飞快的生活，我们究竟该如何是好？ 入围第73届戛纳国际电影节的喜剧电影《反卷奶爸》（又名：两个阿尔弗雷德），为我们提供了解决问题的新...  (展开)

一、多个时空


《纯粹理性批判》中的第一经验类比（Analogies of Experience）要求在现象中有一个恒定且唯一之物来表象意识中的时间本身。恒定，或永恒，因为作为总体的时间本身是始终在那的；惟一，因为只有一个时间。这个惟一且永恒的东西，即现象中的实体（Substance）。康德明确把这个实体与洛克的托子（Substratum）区分开来，认为实体是以各种方式显现于人的，而不是像托子那样不可知，也不显现。

我要说，洛克的托子的作用是保证物的个体化与同一性。这个作用在康德那儿，似乎是由物自体和先验范畴共同完成。先验范畴组织现象，在使意识对现象的认识成为可能的同时，也使同一的意识本身成为可能——对先验对象的构成即对自我的构成。而物自体在这个过程中究竟如何起作用，不详。康德的物自体与洛克的托子一样，是个让理论显得尴尬，却又不得不进行的假设。

尽管康德反复说现象中的实体不是洛克的托子，但这个实体究竟是什么，他又语焉不详。出于他对牛顿力学的接受，有人尝试将其理解为牛顿意义上的质量。我论证过，这样的解读将面临一个两难困境：如果实体是个体化了的质量，时间便不是惟一的；如果实体是现象世界中的总质量，基于二律背反的理由——这个总体无法成为经验对象——我们便无法经验到它。（详细论述见篇末附录）

若是跳出康德阐释，取前一个困境：时间不是惟一的，每个作为现象的物都意味着一个独立的时间体系，我们就科幻了：空间中的一个一个的物，奠基着意识中的一个又一个时间系，我们可以生活在不同的时空中，当我们经验不同的物。甚至，对应地说，我们总在成为另一个人，当我们来到不同的时空。

于是，我情愿把亨利的生活看作对康德的一次失败却有趣的解读。与其说他是一位时间旅行者，一位不停地穿越时空的超人或可怜人，不如说，他的意识中并没有一个绝对惟一的时间，他所来到并离开的每一个时空，都是一个独立自在的世界，尽管这些世界看上去很像，但哪个都不依赖于另一个——从理念的意义上说。


二、沉默，或消失


影片的前半部分，亨利的突然消失被解释为一种不治的遗传疾病。没有理由地，他时不时就去了另一个时空，赤身裸体地寻找可以穿上的衣服。仿佛常人来到一个新的环境，总是迫不及待地寻找一个身份，穿到自己身上。
亨利总会在一个无从预料的时刻消失，克莱尔生活在一个不确定的世界中。她的爱情是确定的，但她爱的人不确定地存在着。她的生活中弥漫着不确定性，而这恰好让她格外珍惜亨利在她身边的每一分钟。

克莱尔一次次怀孕又一次次流产，因为胎儿也有穿越症，莫名其妙地，便在某个时刻，出离了子宫。但克莱尔最后一次怀孕时，对亨利说，你每次消失都是因为感觉到了压力。所以，从现在开始，我要保持绝对地平静，这样胎儿就可以顺利出生了。
看到这里，我恍然大悟，原来亨利的穿越症是个隐喻，关于男人的隐喻：面对压力，便会沉默与回避，这不正是男人的本能反应么——而这在女人看来，仿佛爱人去了另一个时空，不知何时才能回来，甚至，会不会回来。

我查了查，电影改编自一位女造型艺术家的首部小说，写于一段失败的恋情之后。原来如此。

很多年前听到过一个说法：爱情，对男人来说，是挂在墙上的一幅画，你并不总是去看它；但对女人来说，则是房间里音乐，你想不听都不行。所以，男人需要时不时地呆在纯然属于自我的世界里，在沉默中成为自己。女人却要认为这是对她的疏远、对亲密的疏离，并因此而坐立不安，想方设法闯进那份铁一般的沉默。结果，要么把自己撞疼，要么把爱情撞碎。
这是对小儿女情态的描述。若成年点，便会更同情于另一个说法：人生在世，无非是男人讨慰藉，女人讨生活。人并不总是需要慰藉，尤其在得意之时。人却总在生活，就算你不想。


三、看着，却无法改变


在一次穿越中，亨利来到母亲身边，在地铁里，母亲在看报，他们作为陌生人简短却亲切的交谈了一会儿。亨利告诉母亲，他要结婚了，这个女孩让他感到安全。
克莱尔问他：你什么不去阻止那场车祸，既然你可以回到车祸发生之前。“我无法阻止。无数次我回到过去，回到母亲还在的时候，但每次我都无法改变发生着的一切。”——这话让人特别难过。我们并不能改变过去，就像不能重新雕刻一座已然完成的塑像。

不是么？很多时候，我们从自己当下的境遇中抽身而出，试图站在一个更开阔的角度，超脱地看现在的纠结、焦虑，或苦闷，并自嘲这些都没什么的。但当你身在当下，你知道未来的自己就坐在对面，笑着，看着自己，慈悲地。但你还是无法因此脱身而出。你仍然只能呆在你当下的处境中，无论是过分的快乐，还是仿佛无法挣脱的哀伤。

每一个时刻都是三维的，它包含着过去、现在，和未来这三个维度。我们在回忆中编辑时间，编辑自己，有意无意地遗忘一些，并把另一些反复摩挲。过往明明灭灭，像晴天里，随风晃动的百叶窗投在墙上的影子。每次回忆之后，我们都成为另一个人。
未来也是。未来无数次作为想象呈现于当下，各式各样地，仿佛清晰的回忆。回忆与憧憬，如同天平的两臂，对称着，平衡着，在现在这个支点上。所以，现在这个时刻，最重。


四、期限


有天聚会时，亨利中枪后痛苦挣扎的裸体突然出现在他们的门厅里。又消失了。克莱尔说，我从没见过四十岁之后的你。我见过的你总是很年轻。从这个时候起，死亡就成了他们中的另一个在场者，尽管它总是沉默着。

亨利穿越到未来，遇见了自己的已经十岁的女儿。女儿告诉他，他死于自己五岁那年。她们一直很想念他。那时他们的女儿还没出生。那时克莱尔还一如既往地希望与亨利白头偕老，就像她还没长大时那样，就像她长大之后第一次遇到亨利时那样，就像亨利死后，她仍然留着亨利所有的衣服，等着亨利回来那样。

于她而言，亨利是不会死的。他无非是走远了一下子回不来，他无非是在时空中迷了路，找不到一件让他温暖的衣服。

女儿五岁那年，亨利和克莱尔都已知道，亨利即将死去，中弹而死。期限降至，可能在任何一天，任何一个时刻。在它到来之前，所有相聚的时光都是铭刻，都是用最日常的方式来进行的一次祭奠，一次追忆。当这个期限还不确定，他们相爱着，仿佛一对最平凡的恋人；当这个期限已然确定，他们相爱着，装作不知道他们即将分离。

一个期限并不见得让期限到来之前的一切都显得美好。但，美好的东西都有一个期限。确定的期限，或不确定的期限。你不能试图挽留，那会犹如握紧手中的细沙，握得越紧，便流失得越快，宛如时间，从指缝间悄然流走。
这个期限是否到来，何时到来，都不是你能选择的。你能做的，仅仅是在它到来之前的每一刻，不让自己在未来后悔——克莱尔明白这些，并且，她做到了。

而，这不正是人生么。


——————
附录：On Understanding Substance as Mass

Introduction

In the First Analogy of Experience, Kant argues that there must be some permanently persistent substance in the appearances which represents the persistence of time. Given Kant’s endorsement of Newtonian physics, commentators such as Eric Watkins suggest that such permanently persistent substance can be understood as Newtonian mass. In this paper, however, I argue that we face a dilemma when we try to cash out the notion of substance in terms of Newtonian mass.
The paper proceeds in three steps. In the first section, I present the reason why there needs to be a permanently persistent substance in the appearances, and discuss why it seems to be compelling to conceive of the permanently persistent substance as Newtonian Mass. Then, in the second section, I argue that there are (only) two ways of conceiving of the permanently persistent substance as Newtonian mass, namely, to conceive of substance as individuated mass and to conceive of substance as the sum total of mass in the world of appearances. I show that there are textual indications as well as philosophical reasons to support each option. In the third section, however, I argue that both ways suffer from inescapable problems. Thus, conceiving of the permanently persistent substance in terms of Newtonian mass is not viable.

    
Section I. The Permanently Persistent Substance

In this section, I shall first present the reason why Kant thinks that there must be a permanently persistent substance in the appearances. I then discuss why it is compelling to conceive of such substance as Newtonian mass.
In the chapter “System of all principles of pure understanding,” Kant discusses what makes possible the applications of the categories, i.e. the pure concepts of understanding, to objects, i.e. appearances that are given to sensible intuitions. That is, he discusses what it is that makes the categories have objective validity. Kant’s claim is that the applications of the categories are only possible under certain conditions, and these conditions are spelled out by the principles. For instance, the applications of the relational categories (substance-accidents, cause and effect, and mutual interactions) are possible if they are applied to objects according to the principles of Analogies of Experience. In addition to the three specific principles that correspond to each of the three relational categories, Kant also provides a general principle overarching all three Analogies. The general principle is stated in the second edition as follows: “Experience is possible only through the representations of a necessary connection of perceptions” (B 218). Watkins provides a helpful interpretation of this general principle:
“The general idea is that each of the three relational categories represents a necessary connection that is required for experience of a single time and of objects existing and being temporally related to each other within a single time to be possible.” (My emphasis)
Since this paper is focused on the notion of substance in the first Analogy, I shall ignore the second and third Analogies. So I now turn to a close examination of the first Analogy.
The first Analogy, i.e. the principle of the persistence of substance, is stated in the second edition as follows: “In all change of appearances substance persists, and its quantum is neither increased nor diminished in nature.” (B 224) Watkins summarizes Kant’s argument for the first Analogy as follows (which I take to be a correct interpretation):
Premise 1: Appearances, i.e. objects of experience, are made possible by time’s persistence.
Premise 2: We do not perceive time itself.
Therefore, In order to have experience of appearances, there must be some permanent substance in the appearances which can represent time or time’s persistence.
While the appearances, as the objects given to our intuitions, are changing, the substance in appearances always stays the same and is permanent. So, Kant calls the permanent substance “the substratum of everything real” (B 225). But, some clarifications about Kant’s use of the term “substratum” are needed to prevent potential confusions. Substratum in Kant’s text does not mean what Locke uses this term to mean, namely, the bearer of properties which is unchanging and about which we can have no knowledge. For, according to Locke, we can only know what is given to our senses, but since the underlying substratum cannot be given to our senses, we have no access to it and therefore cannot know it.
Kant, by constrast, does not think that there is any Lockean substratum in the world of appearances. For Kant, the fact that the states of the substance are changing and the substance stays the same does not mean the states are separable from the substance. Rather, the changing states of the substance are simply the ways in which the substance is given to us. Thus, we can know the substance, that is, we know the substance through its states. In order to avoid the Lockean implication of the term “substratum,” I shall only use “substance” to refer to the permanently persistent thing in the appearances despite Kant’s own use of “substratum” to talk about what is permanent in the appearances.
Since I have argued that Kant’s notion of substance is not the Lockean substratum, then what is the Kantian notion of substance? We need a positive account of what the substance is. It is obvious that such a permanently persistent thing cannot be captured by ordinary physical objects, no matter whether they are natural objects (say, rocks) or artifacts (say, ships), for neither artifacts nor natural objects always stay the same such that in principle they can never suffer changes. So, it seems no ordinarily construed physical things can be qualified as substance that is permanently persistent. On the other hand, it is very hard to imagine that anything non-physical could play the role the substance is supposed to play. For it is hard to imagine how a non-physical being could be given to our sensible intuition or could be spatiotemporally organized by our a priori intuitions. So, it is unlikely that Kant means something non-physical by “substance.” Thus, there are two constraints on spelling out what substance is. First, it is something physical. Second, as I have shown, the physical being that can be understood as substance cannot be ordinarily individuated physical things such as planet or rock.
In order to meet the above two conditions, Watkins suggests that, given Kant’s commitment to Newtonian science, it is likely that Kant has Newtonian mass in mind when he talks about the substance, since no matter how a physical object changes, its mass always stays the same. Since Newtonian mass is physical and is not an ordinarily individuated object, it seems quite compelling that the substance, which is permanently persistent, just is Newtonian mass. According to common sense, Newtonian mass is understood to be underlying objects such that we cannot directly perceive mass but can only perceive mass through the way it is given to our intuition, namely, through the perception of the objects that have mass. Thus, mass is neither unknowable nor directly perceivable, which seems to fit the description of the substance perfectly.
Moreover, there are many textual indications that suggest the identification of substance with mass. Let me note two examples. First, recall the general principle overarching the three specific Analogies, namely, “In all change of appearances substance persists, and its quantum is neither increased nor diminished in nature.” (B 224) It seems that “quantum” is most naturally to be understood as mass, for mass seems to be the only thing in nature that is neither increased nor diminished on Newtonian physics.
The other indication is Kant’s example to illustrate his claim that “he <a philosopher> thus assumed that as incontrovertible that even in fire the matter (substance) never disappears but rather only suffers an alteration in its form.” (B 288, my emphasis):
“A philosopher was asked: How much does the smoke weigh? He replied: If you take away from the weight of the wood that was burnt the weight of the ashes that are left over, you will have the weight of the smoke.” (B 288)
We can see that here Kant explicitly identifies substance with matter. And it is quite plausible to think that “matter” is just another way of saying “mass”. That is, “mass” seems to be the theoretical analog of the term “matter.” This hypothesis is supported by the example of the weight of smoke. For, in the example, the way to calculate the weight of smoke just is to calculate the mass (multiplies the gravitational constant).
However, despite the compelling reasons for the identification of substance with mass, in the next sections, I shall argue that the substance cannot be understood as Newtonian mass, for when we try to work out the details of understanding the substance as mass, we face an unavoidable dilemma.


Section II. Some Mass or the Sum Total of Mass

In this section, I shall argue that there are two ways of conceiving of substance as Newtonian mass, and then show that both ways have some support from the text and are to some extent philosophically plausible. So, both ways deserve detailed considerations. But, in the next section, I shall argue that both ways face insurmountable problems.
In identifying substance with mass, we need to settle an ambiguity: Is the mass meant to be some mass, say the mass of a rock which is 7 kilograms (a randomly chosen weight), or to be the sum total of mass in the world of appearances which is a very large but nonetheless definite amount? Since both some mass and the sum total of mass are permanently persistent, we cannot tell which way of identifying is more plausible with respect to the permanent persistence of substance. So, we must appeal to some other philosophically and/or textually interesting points to ground a preference in choosing one over the other.
Let us first consider identifying the substance with some or individuated mass. First, the first Analogy is the principle according to which the relational category substance-accident is to be applied. Kant defines accidents to be “the determinations of a substance that are nothing other than particular ways for it to exist.”(B 229) Many commentators interpret the relation to be between object and its properties or states. Thus it makes more sense to think that the mass, which is the underlying bearer of properties, is the individuated mass of some object, instead of the sum total of mass in the world of appearances. For instance, in the example of the weight of smoke, Kant seems to conceive of substance as the matter, i.e. mass, of an individual object. Moreover, if we conceive of substance as the sum total of mass in the world of appearances, it is very hard to imagine how substance can be the bearer of properties or what kind of properties of which substance is the bearer.
One might argue that, on the interpretation according to which substance is the sum total of mass, even though we could imagine no properties of which substance is the bearer, we can still conceive of substance as the bearer of (changing) states, i.e. the successive states of the world of appearances. I reply that Kant cannot accept such an idea because the states of the world are not objects of possible experience, for it is at least empirically true that no one could have the whole world of appearances as his object of experience. I will return to this point later on in the paper and use it to argue that conceiving of substance as the sum total of mass is untenable given Kant’s theoretic commitments.
The above discussion is about reasons to prefer the identification of substance with some mass. I now turn to the reasons to prefer the identifications of substance with the sum total of mass. There are some textual evidences in the first Analogy that suggest this latter identification. For instance, the following passage:
“…here the issue is only appearances in the field of experience, the unity of which would never be possible if we were to allow new things (as far as their substance is concerned) to arise. For then everything would disappear that alone can represent the unity of time, namely the identity of the substratum in which alone all change has its thoroughgoing unity. This persistence is therefore nothing more than the way in which we represent the existence of things (in appearances).” (B 229/A186, my emphasis)
In this passage, Kant seems to identify the permanent persistent substance that represents the persistence of time with the unity of appearances, which seems to be the sum total of mass in the whole world of appearances. Let me argue for my understanding of this passage that it indicates that Kant identifies substance with the sum total of mass. I shall argue by reductio: Suppose Kant identified substance with individuated mass in the above passage. Then, it would make no sense to think that the arising of new substance could make the representation of the unity of time impossible. For the arising of new substance in no sense affects the substance, i.e. the mass, of the original objects. Let me use an example to illustrate. Suppose there is a rock whose mass is 7 kilograms and there arises a new object out of nothing, whose mass is 5 kilograms. Insofar as the rock’s mass remains the same, whether or not there are new masses arising out of nothing does not affect the unity of the rock’s mass, which is 7 kilograms. Therefore, in this passage, Kant conceives of substance as the sum total of mass in the whole world of appearances.
So far I have shown that there are compelling reasons to identify substance with some mass or with the sum total of mass respectively. In the next section, I shall argue that there are also devastating reasons to each identification such that either way we go, we face unsolvable problems.


Section III. One Single Time and the Limit of Possible Experience

I now turn to the problems from which the each identification suffers. In this section, I shall argue that these problems make both identifications untenable. Let us first consider the identification of substance with individuated mass (i.e. some mass). I argue that the reason why individuated mass cannot be identified with substance is that individuated mass cannot represent the oneness of time. Recall Kant’s argument for the principle of the first Analogy: in order to have experiences of objects as temporal, we must identify a permanently persistent substance that can represent time in objects. While the states of the substance change, the substance persists so that the substance can represent time that persists. It is important to notice that time, which is supposed to be represented by substance in appearances, is one single time. But, individuated mass cannot represent one single time. For there are many individuated masses, for instance, the mass of a rock which is 7 kilograms, the mass of a cup which is 0.5 kilogram, and the mass of a table which is 3 kilograms, each of which is permanently persistent and undergoes changes. If one of them can represent time, any other also can. In that case, we do not have one single time. Rather, we have many times or time-series, each of which is persistent.
Let me explain in details why multiply individuated masses cannot represent on single time. If these individuated masses can represent one single time, there must be some one single thing that is shared by these individuated masses that serves to represent the singularity of time. Whatever this shared thing is, it is not any of these individuated masses. Therefore, individuated mass cannot present one single time. However, on the other hand, time has be to singular. Here is a passage in the first Analogy which explains why time has to be one single time rather than a plurality of times:
“Substances (in appearances) are the substrata of all time-determinations. The arising of some of them and the perishing of others would itself remove the sole condition of the empirical unity of time, and the appearances would then be related to two different times, in which existence flowed side by side, which is absurd. For there is only one time, in which all different times must not be placed simultaneously but only one after another.” (B 232/A189)
One might argue that it does not matter how many individuated masses can represent time, it only matters that there is an individuated mass that represents time. Insofar as there is such a substance, which is permanently persistent, it suffices to represent one single time. I reply that, in that case, we still do not know which individuated mass is suppose to be the representer of the one single time in appearances. For there is not reason to think that the mass of one object is more suitable to represent time than the mass of another object is, insofar as both of the individuated masses are permanently persistent. Any choice of one over the other is arbitrary. But the unity or singularity of time is not arbitrary, for there can only be one time-series which persists, and any other time-series or temporal relations are just temporal parts of this unique time-series. Thus, I conclude that individuated mass cannot be the representer of time in appearances.
I now turn to argue that the sum total of mass cannot represent time either. The idea of my argument is to make use of Kant’s solution to the Antinomies to show that the permanently persistent substance that represents time in the appearances cannot be the sum total of mass because the sum total of mass is not an object of possible experience. Let me lay out my argument in detail.
In “The Antinomy of Pure Reason” chapter, Kant presents four pairs of arguments concerning four cosmological ideas about the world-whole, namely, whether there is a beginning of time, whether there is indivisibly simple substance, whether there is a first cause, and whether there is a necessary existent. As Allen W. Wood argues, the four antinomies share a general form, namely, the thesis of each antinomy claims that there must be a first member of the conditioning-conditioned chain, while the antithesis of each antinomy claims that there is no first member of such a chain and that the chain goes back into infinity. Kant argues that there are valid arguments for each of the four theses as well as valid arguments for each of the four antitheses, so we need a solution to such contradictions.
Kant’s solution to the contradictions, as Wood argues, relies on his doctrine of transcendental idealism. As for the first two antinomies, Wood argues
The mathematical antinomies are generated by mathematical principles that apply to things only insofar as they are given in sensible intuition…But these [the first two] series of conditions are never given to intuition as a whole...The theses are false because the principles of possible experience make it impossible for objects corresponding to the cosmological ideas of a first event, a largest extent of the world or a simple substance, ever to be given to intuition.”
Thus, the reason why Kant thinks that the claims made by the theses of the first and second antinomies are false is that neither the beginning of time nor the spatial boundary of the world or an indivisible substance can ever be given to our sensible intuition. If something cannot be given to our sensible intuition, according to Kant, we cannot have experience of it. Let me call this principle the object-of-sensible-intuition principle, namely, if something cannot be given to our sensible intuitions, then it cannot be object of our possible experience. And we can apply this principle to an object to determine whether that object can be object of possible experience. That is, if the object in question can be given to our sensible intuition, then the object can be object of our possible experience, but if the object cannot be given to our sensible intuition, then it cannot be object of our possible experience.
Now, let me apply the object-of-sensible-intuition principle to the idea of the sum total of mass. We can see that the sum total of mass cannot be given to our sensible intuition, so, the sum total of mass cannot be object of our possible experience. For the world of appearances seems to mean the whole universe or cosmos (because everything in the universe stands in causal relations to each other), there is no way for all of the mass in the whole universe to be given to our sensible intuition. Actually, we do not even know whether there are spatial boundaries of the universe, so we do not even know whether the sum total of mass in the all universe is finite. Thus, the sum total of mass cannot be object of possible experience. So, the sum total of mass cannot be that which represents time in appearances. For the reason there must be a permanently persistent substance in appearances which represents time is to make our temporally connected representations of objects possible. But, if the sum total of mass cannot be object of experience, it cannot make our experience of object possible. Thus, the permanently persistent substance in appearances cannot be the sum total of mass.
One might object that in the antinomies, the cosmological ideas at issue are condition-condition series. (B 436/A410) But the sum total of mass is not a series. Rather, it is an aggregate about which the question of conditioning and conditioned does not arise at all. Thus, Kant’s remarks on the antinomies have no bearing on whether the idea of the sum total of mass has any objective validity or significance. Moreover, the first two antinomies concern whether the conditioning-conditioned series go on into infinities. And it seems that it is impossible for us to experience infinity, for no matter what we experience it is finite insofar as we have experienced it. But, the quantum of the sum total of mass seems to be a definite and finite amount. By virtues of what can we claim that the sum total of mass cannot be object of experience? Is this “cannot” an empirical cannot, or an In-Principle cannot? If the answer is the former, the empirical “cannot” does not seem to be strong enough to show that the sum total of mass cannot be experienced, because we cannot know or predict whether in the future empirical sciences and technologies will make the sum total of mass possible object of experience. If the answer is the latter, at least further explanations of why the sum total of mass, which is a finite and definite amount, cannot be object of possible experience in principle are needed.
To the first objection I have two replies. First, in the first antinomy, Kant also discusses whether there is boundary or the largest extent of space. It is not obvious that there is a spatial series in the sense that it is obvious that there is a temporal series in which one moment succeeds its previous moments. However, according to Kant, we can think of the space acquiring its quantum through repeatedly or successively adding spatial units to the previous spatial units. (A 428/B 456) That is, the way of conceiving of space as a spatial series depends on the way of conceiving of time as a temporal series, which is naturally serial. Then, by the same token, we can also think of the sum total of mass acquiring its quantum by successively adding massive units to previous massive units. Thus, if the object-of-sensible-intuition principle applies to the idea of the boundary of space, it should also apply to the idea of the sum total of mass of the whole world of appearances.
Second, the fact that Kant applies the object-of-sensible-intuition-principle to the first two (or three) cosmological ideas to solve the contradictions does not mean that the principle can only be employed to deal with the antinomies. If the principle is applicable to other ideas, we can also use the principle to deal with other ideas. Since the object-of-sensible-intuition principle is derived from transcendental idealism, which is an important element in the whole Critique, there is no reason why the principle cannot be applied to other ideas than cosmological ideas. Thus, it is legitimate to use the object-of-sensible-intuition principle to show that the sum total of mass of whole world of appearances cannot be object of possible experience. So, the sum total of mass cannot be what represents time in appearances.
My reply to the second objection has two steps. First, it needs to be clarified that, although the first two antinomies concern whether the conditioning-conditioned series are infinite, Kant’s solution by the object-of-sensible-intuition principle does not rely on the whether the series are infinite. The principle only concerns whether the things to which the cosmological ideas refer can be given to our sensible intuition. It does not concern whether the things are infinite. It seems true that infinity cannot be object of sensible intuition. But this does not mean that all finite things can be given to our sensible intuition. Actually Kant rejects the claim that all finite things can be given to our sensible intuition. For Kant thinks the thesis of the first antinomy is false, because the beginning of time or the boundary of space cannot be given to our sensible intuition so that it cannot be object of possible experience.
The second step of my reply is to spell out in which sense of “cannot,” the sum total of mass cannot be object of possible experience. It seems to me that the distinction between empirical “cannot” and In-Principle “cannot” is hard to cash out in the context of Critique. For, in the Critique, any legitimate claim to knowledge entails that the object of which the knowledge is can be experienced. Thus, it seems that the empiricality of the “cannot” entails the In-Principality of the “cannot”.
However, concerning the claim that we cannot predict whether in the future empirical sciences and technologies will make the sum total of mass possible object of experience, what would Kant say? Would Kant agree that future sciences and technologies might or could transform a transcendent idea into an idea which refers to object of possible experience? I do not think he would. For Kant thinks his Critique settles metaphysical questions once and for all by theoretical reason, which is static or a-historical. Future discoveries made by sciences and technologies should be able to do no damage to the doctrines in Critique. Moreover, it should be odd to Kant’s ear that progresses made by empirical sciences could have any bearings on the doctrines in the Critique, which he builds up from scratch employing only pure reason, which is absolutely a-historical.
Thus, I conclude that the above arguments show that identifying substance with the sum total of mass in the world of appearance is not tenable. Since I showed earlier in this section that identifying substance with individuated mass is not tenable either, I conclude that the general strategy of identifying substance with mass is untenable.


Section IV. Concluding Remarks

In this paper, I showed that a seemingly very promising way of understanding the permanently persistent substance discussed in the first Analogy, namely, conceiving of substance as Newtonian mass, is untenable. Then, I wonder whether there are other promising ways of providing a positive account of substance or actually it is the case that the notion of substance in the first Analogy is itself untenable. At this stage, maybe I could follow Kant’s stance on the things of themselves, namely, they exist, but we can have no knowledge about the way of their existence. But, at the same time, we need to have this minimal conviction that they exist. Similarly, concerning substance, we can have no knowledge about what the permanently persistent substance is, but we need to have the minimal conviction that it exists in the world of appearances and it serves to represent time.

挺有意思，导演在框架内“反套路”； 小白这个白人傻叉，一般来说死在第一次，居然死在第二次闯入； 本以为小黑会前仆后继掉入陷阱，结果单亲老母孤身侦查； 能感觉到导演尽力将剧情真实化的前提下的反套路； 当然，黑人重视家庭这个没亲眼目睹，不知是否太刻意？ 最怂的是黑人...  (展开)

秦腔元素出现在恐怖片中是世界首次吧？但其实戏子早已不是恐怖片中的新鲜面孔了。
        港台鬼片唱粤剧，大陆鬼片演京剧，锣鼓点敲起来，行头穿起来大白脸画起来，各种配上一段似有似无的女生吟唱，任你是什么时代背景，马上将恐怖G点来到至少民国之前，剪掉大辫子之前的时代，总是透着那么丝丝恐怖。而多年以来恐怖片对观众在潜移默化中的教育是，戏子总有一段伤心的往事，戏子容易被人瞧不起而含恨自杀，戏子容易因为社会地位地下而受虐致死，总之，戏子死后是很容易变鬼的。《虐面人》在对这一元素的运用上使用了非常巧妙地技巧，颠覆了普通恐怖片的固有套路。这部电影中，戏子不唱京剧越剧昆曲等等那些百转千回怨气十足的调子，而是改唱了秦腔（这应该和编剧的籍贯有关？）秦腔不唱吼起来！这一吼，戏子形象顿时跳脱出来。另外，《虐面人》中的戏子并不是什么偶然现身吓人的配角，而是两位女主。活生生的例子告诉我们，戏子也是可以在恐怖片中以正常人的形式存在的。
        三角恋、飞纸钱、诡异的小孩等这些恐怖片惯用元素似乎在《虐面人》中都有出现，可是又都成功变换了一个模样，怎么说呢，叫它有虐面人特色的中国恐怖片主义吧，称得上是一种创新和成功。
《虐面人之死灵面膜》，片名中面膜两字基本上可以秒杀中国所有的恐怖片。无论你是撕拉式还是涂抹式，面膜都有让人一秒变鬼的魔力。曾被贴着面膜的脸吓到过的请举手！这么好的恐怖片素材为什么到现在才有人想起来用！面膜，本身和恐怖沾不上半点关系，可它干时如纸钱，湿时似脸皮，干湿吓人两相宜啊！相比把脸涂到雪白，贴上面膜的脸在白的同时五官不清，有种被揭下脸皮又贴回去的即视感，而在各处莫名其妙的发现犹如一张张脸皮的面膜，显然比发现一张冥币的视觉冲击来的猛烈地多。面膜贯穿了剧情的始终，这一元素作为一部恐怖片的主要线索不仅仅是在中国，甚至是在国外也是第一次。而导演似乎也在试图用这一元素强调一个主题：每个人的表面之下，都暗藏着未知的任性，只有在揭下这一层伪装看到血淋淋的人性之后才能获得最终的真实。
五分，给创新元素。

史诗?奇幻

《狄仁杰》的开局非常有史诗气派，辐辏四方的神都洛阳，高达两百多米的通天浮屠和商贾云集的街市，天后登基前夕，繁华中孕育着风暴前的不安。似乎一部大唐“信史”就要展现在我们面前，然而转眼之间，神鹿、毒虫、妖人、鬼市纷至沓来，立马把全片带入了一种亦幻亦真的魔幻氛围之中。那这到底是一部史诗还是奇幻作品呢？

与徐克大多数的武侠作品一样，这是一部建立在细致考据之上的幻想之作，真实与梦幻，缺一不可。

以片中的服饰来说，大理寺的白头神探裴东来时常穿着大开领的胡服，这是当时在洛阳非常流行的青年男子装扮，正好衬托裴东来飞扬跳脱，敏捷冲动的性格。上官静儿的服装除了一套素色宫装之外，全都是男装，透露出此人不让须眉的勃勃英气。即使是片中唯一引发笑场的武则天的“欧洲贵妇装”，其实也是史有明载的装扮，头上的宽檐帽当时叫做浑脱帽。当然更不用提神探狄仁杰头上琳琅满目的各色帽式了。

以器物而论，片中的各种机巧非常令人玩味。裴东来这个“唐代特种兵”身上除了火折子这种江湖豪客标准装备之外，还带了登山镐、竹蜻蜓和“烟雾弹”。竹蜻蜓本来是儿童玩具，被徐老怪设计成了试探虚实的暗器，而“烟雾弹”赫然便是当时富人流行的香熏球，金属的球身内装有平衡装置，防止燃烧的香料撒出。本来散落在博物馆里的死物件，放到徐克这个老顽童手里，居然有了“飞花摘叶，伤人立死”的奇效，你说，这算史诗还是奇幻呢？

《狄仁杰》的世界里不但有奇物，更有奇术。腹语本是江湖杂耍，在片中成了“散布封建迷信”的关键。驯鹿本是游牧民族的专长，关键时刻却成了国师的一支突袭别动队。还有八卦阵、催眠术、易容术等等诡异神通，不一而足。徐克这次在构思细节方面落足了功夫，几乎每一场戏都有新事物出现，一不留神就会错过。

几乎没有人会注意狄仁杰一行三人离开鬼市后栖身的地方，其实是一所教堂吧？基督教名为“景教”的一支早在大唐贞观年间就传入了中土，并且在武则天统治下依然蓬勃发展，然而以往的影视作品几乎对此没有任何反映。徐克曾经透露过，他在《狄仁杰》中想表现中国的儒释道三教，恪守儒家教训的狄神探，一心佞佛的武则天和玄机莫测的国师分别代表中国传统文化中最重要的三个部分。然而最后作品中出现的，甚至还包括了基督教和伊斯兰教（阿斯巴将军的随从），应该是佛道儒回耶五教才对。

翻开《狄仁杰》的幕后，我们会惊讶地看到，以上的种种“神通”居然尚未穷尽徐克的全部构想。在徐克的草图中，还有火牛阵大破契丹的场面，还有更多的鬼市奇观。甚至，罗马的阿斯巴将军曾出现在教堂中，向破案三人组透露了一个天大的秘密：其实这次武后邀请他前来，是要他把一种大秦的秘密武器安装到通天浮屠的头部。八百年前，阿基米德曾经用聚集太阳能的办法烧毁过来犯的战船，八百年后，这种武器可以通过大佛的眼部发射，让所有敢来侵犯神都洛阳的水陆敌军一霎那间灰飞烟灭，而一不留神登上大佛眼部的贾大人，刚好成了这次军事试验的牺牲品，“自燃”了——好吧，我承认后面这段是我编的……

言归正传，在这些琳琅满目的历史细节背后，深藏着的是一双永远对另一个世界充满好奇的眼睛。唐诗有云：“研得一寸墨，挥成千仞峰”，这个老顽童从中国丰富的历史中汲取的养分，就是他手中的一寸墨锭，而挥洒出万千气象的，是他狂放不羁的想象力。没有必要计较《狄仁杰》到底是史诗还是奇幻，徐克是最浪漫的银幕诗人，也是最肯为这份浪漫付出考据心力的匠人。

庙堂?江湖

初看《狄仁杰》，心中在兴奋之余，依然有不小的遗憾。一来是这次的题材是老怪以前从未涉足过的宫廷阴谋，仿佛一下从江湖之远飞到了庙堂之高，没有了游侠的快意恩仇。二来是影片的CG特效差强人意，离真正重现大唐盛世差距还不小。我相信，很多心怀不满的观众也有跟我相同的感受。

徐克的电影永远值得至少看第二遍，果然，在第二遍之后，我改变了第一个想法。

狄仁杰这个人，看似武侠电影中罕见的高官出身，其实细究起来，与徐克电影中的那些英雄人物并没有本质的不同。乍看起来，他身为前朝重臣，居然出狱后帮对头干起了保安工作，是为不忠，最后因公负伤，不但没有讨还医疗费和欠薪，临走居然还给老板下跪，是为不智。这样一个人，是万万不配称“侠”的。

然而仔细看剧情的话，我们会发现狄仁杰自始至终都是一个很有原则的人，这原则就是不能容忍指鹿为马，更不能容忍无辜的人受到伤害。因为不愿殃及无辜，他在武则天不择手段铲除异己的时候挺身而出，因此被下狱。出狱以后，尽管在焚字库里了解了她这八年来的勤政爱民，他还是当面指责了她的不是，还在上官静儿想要拷打汪驴的时候出手制止，说“就是因为这样才有那么多人反对你们”。大是大非，他心中清楚得很。他的兵器亢龙锏以守为攻，全片没有亲手杀过一个人，大概也算是徐克武侠电影中的一个异数了。这一切都说明，在他的心目中，人的生命比什么政治立场都重要。王爷为了一家一姓的江山不惜把百姓拖入战乱，这样的事情他当然不愿参加，用什么罪名骂他也没用。

影片的最后，他挂锏而去，既完成了维护和平的使命，又表明了自己不愿同流合污的立场。囿于史实，这样的改编应该已经是最有“侠气”的结局了。即使在徐老怪的武侠代表作《东方不败》中，令狐冲最后也只能选择同样的出路，我们还有什么理由责骂这样的狄仁杰还不够侠义呢？

第一个遗憾就此了结，第二个心结却遗恨难消。

《狄仁杰》的画面什么都好，就是把洛阳的空气通透度设定得太高了点，那种大街小巷一尘不染，天空蔚蓝如镜的感觉，仿佛是为了配合CG特效，怎么看怎么不像是徐克电影的风格，少了许多标志性的烟火气。韩国特效团队做出的洛阳全景大则大矣，细处终究不够生动，甚至还出现了迎面驶来的两条帆船，风帆同样鼓胀的场面，让我百思不得其解风儿到底是怎么吹的。

或许，这就是做大片的代价吧，如今的中国电影市场，还很难承受这么细致的苛求。

回归?创新

面对影片上映后的热烈反响，徐克倒很清醒，拒谈“回归”，坚持自己一直在创新。从《狄仁杰》本身来看，我们也确实能感受到这种创新。我自己的感觉，徐克当年开创的新武侠风潮，其实在美工、摄影、剪辑上一直受益于胡金铨树立的明朝背景的武侠传统，包括非武侠作品如《梁祝》等。五年前的《七剑》，他试图用粗粝的写实风格来跳出这个传统，意义非凡，可惜观众还不习惯欣赏。《狄仁杰》则是他的另一次重要尝试，剧情被放到了大唐，服饰、武器、摄影等等都与胡金铨电影有了本质的不同，尤其是武器系统，堪称中国武侠电影中革命性的变化，变得真正写实了（虽然武打并没有跟上）。在他锐意创新的时候说“回归”二字，确实是有点让人尴尬。

既然如此，与其念念不忘徐克既往的辉煌，不如让我们继续期待他前行的脚步。这个武侠电影万马齐喑的年代，或许也是武侠电影正在孕育生机的年代，多年后，我们回望今天，说不定会发现，《狄仁杰》其实已经带着我们站在了一个新的起跑线上。

载10月11日《海南日报》

  
惊悚片恐怖片就像中国足球一样让国人又爱又恨，爱的是对象本身，恨的是国产的表现。面对未知世界的好奇和探索是观众喜爱此类片子源源不断的内在需求。
然而长期的期待，长期的失望，造成国产惊悚片闻片而骂的下场。影院里稀稀拉拉的观众倒增加了观影的效果，不知制片方见此情景是哭还是笑。
水军的效果其实是不可小看得。虽然该片没有大肆宣传，但有关制片方阵容的介绍还是相当有噱头的。
之所以有名人效应，至少是一定品质的保证。《墓穴迷城》看下来也算基本合格。故事框架相当不错，虽然年轻演员颜值有点低，不过老谢一人上场立马逼格高了好几个档次。
故事编了千千万万，吸引的是情怀。开篇老城的景和人，还真有那个氛围。落魄的父亲，奇怪的家庭，刻画的相当到位，可惜过于潦草，有点让人意犹未尽，是为虎头。
探险社匆匆出发，有惊无险的在隧道似地墓穴里转来钻去。据说是按1：1的比例搭建的场景，倒确实没有大的瑕疵，只是镜头的晃动让人恍惚又回到了八十年代。看来国产恐怖片镜头的运用是有着不可质疑的传统的。是为猫身。
顺便吐槽一下蒙太奇里复活的唐朝仕女，估计经费有点紧张，选得群众演员完全是酒肆服务员的水准。
上一辈的恩恩怨怨，归结到辩机被腰斩要复仇最终的放下，算是对整个影片的升华和完整地交代，是为凤尾。
谈不上多精彩，但也算合格，基本无尿点，希望国产片能在次基础上愈发精彩。惊悚片无论如何还是有市场的。

谢晗：

男，30岁。美国华人富商之子，自小父母离异，母亲不愿意带他离开，父亲花天酒地，令他遭受到较多的家庭冷暴力，造就了冷漠残忍的性格。他非常聪明，曾考入普林斯顿大学文学系。但因已经扭曲的性格无法与正常人相处，与院方产生矛盾，愤然离去。后又对犯罪心理学产生兴趣，自诩为专家。在他的成长过程中，犯罪行为一直未停止，并且越演越烈，最终演化为“鲜花食人魔”。在美国与薄靳言交手后，他深信其第二人格Allen的存在，暗中追随薄靳言回到美国。他沉迷并且擅长犯罪，不仅在薄靳言破获的数起案件里留下挑衅讯息，还亲手实施一系列残忍犯罪。他制定了全面的计划，妄想逼出薄靳言的双重人格，最终反而被薄靳言拉入圈套里，跳楼结束了生命。但至死，他也不曾悔悟，并且对自己的执念保持坚定。

这是谢晗的一个大概简历。

很早就看过这本小说，老实说书里面并没有感觉谢晗是一个很出彩的人物，引起大家注意的一直都是作者设定的那个智商超高的大神，我也不例外。不过作为一个喜欢看小说的，看过这个就去看下一个了，并没有过多留意，直到听说这部小说被拍成了电视剧。

不记得鱼旦叔是作为第几个被官宣的，但是当时宣布的时候我简直太期待了！！！

彼时我恰好追完《红色》，被天哥戳中萌点的我简直被迷得不可自拔！！！红色里面鱼旦叔的表演简直可以说是浑然天成，深入人心！！！虽然他“自来旧”，但是表演丝丝入扣，引人入胜。他可以对田丹温柔体贴、腼腆害羞；他也可以对影佐柔中带刚、尽力周旋；他还可以对铁林兄弟情深、肝胆相照；他更可以对金哥暗中防备，对邻居和睦亲近。那一身旧棉袍，撑起了一个隐身于市的“无名英雄”的铮铮铁骨。追完了红色，搜索他的时候才发现痞子戏子厨子里那个冷峻帅气的日本军官也是他！同时发现他演了不少的剧：《火线三兄弟》、《娘要嫁人》，《马上天下》，《绝地枪王》，以及近几年豆瓣最高评分电视剧----《红色》.......在他演过的角色中，有温文儒雅的少年书生，有大隐于市的升斗小民，有凌厉狠辣的日本高官，还有运筹帷幄的将帅之才，无论是正派反派，文戏武戏，鱼旦叔都是游刃有余，绝对的演技派！！！！

所以看完了这次的超长预告片，发现鱼旦叔这次气场全开！！！！期待指数报表！！！冷酷残忍的眼神，狡猾狠辣的眼神，让人毛骨悚然，但是又觉得好带感！！！

这会是对书中人物神还原！！！无论演技、颜值还是气场，都令人惊艳，堪称完美反派，绝对过目难忘！！！

“魔神”谢晗，即将来临，又一个反派更出彩演技完爆男主的电视剧！！！

这是一位永远用演技征服你的真正的演员-----张鲁一，他来了，你准备好了吗？