SAE Marriage Theory Paper 6: Three / SAE 婚姻论 Paper 6: 三个人

SAE Marriage Theory Paper 6. This record holds the Chinese text and its English edition. The English edition is an independent rewrite of the Chinese text, not a translation; where the two differ, the Chinese governs. This paper reads what lies between husband and wife after a third one has come. A child has come, and this series still reads only what lies between husband and wife: the side of shared child-rearing that lies between husband and wife. What lies between the child and the parents belongs to Parent-Child Theory; dealings among three persons are broken down and entered on separate accounts, pair by pair, and passing through a third one does not release the instigator from his part. The child is a third one, not a third composed of the two; above the two, no position that legislates for everyone is set up just because there is one more person. A third one welcomed through adoption is likewise read by this paper; the preparation the two make together for his coming is read by Paper 5. The child is able to unfold without revolving around me, and also able to unfold without revolving around her: this test is read person by person. The two people's looking-toward crosses on one and the same child, and each belongs to each, so the test also belongs to each person: passing for one person does not pass for the other; each can confirm only his own end; arrangements the two decide together are also entered on separate accounts, pair by pair. This is a test, not that the child must in fact leave; being able is limited to constitutive independence, not real-world self-sufficiency: that the child cannot do without the two does not let either party acquire his constitution, nor let either party thereby hold alone the adjudication of what the two do together. "For the child's sake" cannot legislate for the two people. What this phrase says may be, not what the child has said, but how the party speaking reads what the child wants; it can be a reason, a request; taken up to settle for the other party that she must yield, it legislates for her in the child's name, and has the same form as "for the sake of this household." Whether it appeals to something done together, to existing arrangements, or borrows mutual recognition to pass final judgment, is to be checked case by case, not assigned by the form of the sentence. Using the child to keep the other party: on the child's side, the child is taken up as the condition of the other party's staying; where this falls to "only as," the child is treated only as a condition, which carries the direction of colonization; whether it falls there is seen in whether, in the two people's arrangements, he still has a place of his own, not decided by one sentence. On the other party's side, it raises the cost of the other party's exit outward; once spoken it carries the direction of colonization; raised until the other party actually cannot leave, at the layer of basic rights it is a violation. The share each person has done in shared child-rearing cannot be acknowledged by someone else in his place: a fault cannot be passed over to another, and giving is not taken up to possess the other party's adjudication either. Shared child-rearing is not settled by unilateral exit, nor does it turn into a demand that "you must come back": a marriage can end, and the matters of shared child-rearing remain between the two as before. This paper interfaces with Aristotle, Hegel and Locke. This paper does not prove that one ought to stay for the child's sake, nor that children bring husband and wife closer. SAE 婚姻论 Paper 6。本记录收中文正文与英文版;英文版是独立重写,不是翻译,两版不一致处以中文为准。 这一篇读第三个人来了以后的夫妻之间。孩子来了,这个系列仍只读夫妻两人之间:共同养育在夫妻之间的那一面。孩子与父母之间,归亲子论;三个人之间的来往,拆成两两记账,经过第三个人,不免除始作俑者那一段。孩子是第三个人,不是两个人合成的第三者;两人之上,不因多了一个人就立起一个替大家立法的位置。领养迎来的第三个人,同样照这一篇读;两人为他的到来一起做的准备,照第五篇读。 孩子能够不再围绕我而展开,也能够不再围绕她而展开:这道检验逐人读。两个人的看向在同一个孩子身上交错,各归各人,所以检验也各归各人,过了一个人的,不替另一个人过;各人只确认得了自己这一端;两人合定的安排,也两两记账。这是检验,不是孩子事实上必须离开;能够,限为构成独立,不是现实自足:孩子离不开两个人,不使任何一方取得他的构成,也不使任何一方借此独占两人一起做的事的裁断。 「为了孩子」不能替两个人立法。这句话说的可以不是孩子说了什么,是说话的那一方怎样读孩子要什么;它可以是一个理由、一个请求,被拿来替对方结算她必须让步,就是拿孩子的名义替她立法,与「为了这个家」同形。它诉诸的是一起做的事、既有的安排,还是借相认作终审,要逐件核,不凭句式分派。拿孩子去留住对方,对孩子那一侧,孩子被拿来作对方留下的条件,落到「只作为」时,是把孩子只当作条件,带殖民方向;落没落到,看两人的安排里他还有没有自己的地方,不凭一句话。对对方那一侧,是向外抬高对方退出的成本,说出口就带殖民这个方向,抬到对方实际走不了,在基础权利一层是侵。 各人在共同养育里做下的那一份,不能换一个人来认:过错换不过去,付出也不拿来占有对方的裁断。共同养育不以单方退出结清,也不变成「你必须回来」的要求:婚姻可以结束,共同养育的事照旧在两人之间。这一篇与亚里士多德、黑格尔、洛克对接。这一篇不证明为了孩子应当留下,也不证明孩子使夫妻更亲近。 Related works Relation: Cites · Resource type: Publication / Preprint · Scheme: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19328662 10.5281/zenodo.22313628 10.5281/zenodo.22731235 10.5281/zenodo.22970783 10.5281/zenodo.22970787 10.5281/zenodo.22991142 10.5281/zenodo.23545115 10.5281/zenodo.23545047 10.5281/zenodo.23545023 10.5281/zenodo.23545057 10.5281/zenodo.23545087 10.5281/zenodo.23627781