See Randomness
Paul Graham extends a line of Western philosophy, arguing that humans have a natural tendency to see purpose and malice in events, but the better principle is to see randomness. From Socrates' teleology to Dawkins' selfish gene, we have gradually abandoned the assumption that everything revolves around us. This principle applies both to grand ideas and everyday annoyances—like a housemate eating your cake. The essay offers a framework for critical thinking without technical details.
Plato quotes Socrates as saying "the unexamined life is not worth living." Part of what he meant was that the proper role of humans is to think, just as the proper role of anteaters is to poke their noses into anthills.
A lot of ancient philosophy had the quality — and I don't mean this in an insulting way — of the kind of conversations freshmen have late at night in common rooms: What is our purpose? Well, we humans are as conspicuously different from other animals as the anteater. In our case the distinguishing feature is the ability to reason. So obviously that is what we should be doing, and a human who doesn't is doing a bad job of being human — is no better than an animal.
柏拉图引用苏格拉底的话说：“未经审视的人生不值得过。”他部分的意思是，人类的恰当角色是思考，就像食蚁兽的恰当角色是把鼻子伸进蚁丘一样。
很多古代哲学都有这样的特质——我这么说并非冒犯——就像新生在公共休息室里深夜进行的对话：我们的目的是什么？嗯，我们人类与其他动物的区别就像食蚁兽一样明显。我们的显著特征是推理能力。所以显然这就是我们应该做的，一个不这样做的人就是在糟蹋“做人”这件事——与动物无异。
Now we'd give a different answer. At least, someone Socrates's age would. We'd ask why we even suppose we have a "purpose" in life. We may be better adapted for some things than others; we may be happier doing things we're adapted for; but why assume purpose?
如今我们会给出不同的回答。至少，像苏格拉底那个年纪的人会问：为什么我们一开始就假设人生有“目的”？我们可能对某些事情更适应，做适应的事情可能更幸福，但为什么要假设有目的呢？
The history of ideas is a history of gradually discarding the assumption that it's all about us. No, it turns out, the earth is not the center of the universe — not even the center of the solar system. No, it turns out, humans are not created by God in his own image; they're just one species among many, descended not merely from apes, but from microorganisms. Even the concept of "me" turns out to be fuzzy around the edges if you examine it closely.
思想史就是逐步抛弃“一切都与我们有关”这一假设的历史。不，事实证明，地球不是宇宙的中心——甚至不是太阳系的中心。不，事实证明，人类并非按上帝的形象创造；他们只是众多物种之一，不仅从猿猴进化而来，更源于微生物。甚至“自我”这个概念，若仔细审视，其边界也模糊不清。
The idea that we're the center of things is difficult to discard. So difficult that there's probably room to discard more. Richard Dawkins made another step in that direction only in the last several decades, with the idea of the selfish gene. No, it turns out, we're not even the protagonists: we're just the latest model vehicle our genes have constructed to travel around in. And having kids is our genes heading for the lifeboats. Reading that book snapped my brain out of its previous way of thinking the way Darwin's must have when it first appeared.
(Few people can experience now what Darwin's contemporaries did when The Origin of Species was first published, because everyone now is raised either to take evolution for granted, or to regard it as a heresy. No one encounters the idea of natural selection for the first time as an adult.)
以己为中心的观点很难抛弃，难到很可能还有更多可以抛弃。理查德·道金斯就在最近几十年迈出了新一步，提出了“自私的基因”概念。不，事实证明，我们甚至不是主角：我们只是基因构建的最新款旅行载具。而生孩子就是基因冲向救生艇。读那本书把我的大脑从之前的思维方式中拽了出来，就像达尔文当年读到《物种起源》时一定感受到的震撼一样。
（现在很少有人能体验达尔文同时代人在《物种起源》初版时的感受，因为如今每个人要么从小接受进化论，要么将其视为异端。没有人会在成年后第一次接触自然选择的概念。）
So if you want to discover things that have been overlooked till now, one really good place to look is in our blind spot: in our natural, naive belief that it's all about us. And expect to encounter ferocious opposition if you do.
所以，如果你想发现至今被忽视的东西，一个绝佳的去处就是我们的盲点：即我们天生、幼稚的信念——一切都以我们为中心。而且，这样做的话，预期会遭遇激烈的反对。
Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.
This principle isn't only for big ideas. It works in everyday life, too. For example, suppose you're saving a piece of cake in the fridge, and you come home one day to find your housemate has eaten it. Two possible theories:
a) Your housemate did it deliberately to upset you. He knew you were saving that piece of cake. b) Your housemate was hungry.
I say pick b.
反过来，如果你必须在两个理论之间选择，选那个不以你为中心的理论。
这个原则不仅适用于宏大思想，在日常生活中也管用。例如，假设你在冰箱里留了一块蛋糕，某天回家发现室友吃了它。有两种可能的解释：
a) 室友故意这么做让你难受。他知道你在留那块蛋糕。 b) 室友饿了。
我说选b。
No one knows who said "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence," but it is a powerful idea. Its more general version is our answer to the Greeks: Don't see purpose where there isn't.
没人知道是谁说了“能用无能解释的，就不要归咎于恶意”，但这是一个强有力的观点。其更通用的版本就是我们给希腊人的回答：不要在不存在目的的地方看到目的。
Or better still, the positive version: See randomness.
或者更好的积极版本：看到随机性。