日志
现代非自然哲学入门（2）--“我思故我在”续
热度 5 |||
知识老化是可悲的，知识老化的人遇到新的知识不是好奇地学习，而是下意识的反对，就是愚昧了。
比如说，满清人士没有见过火车那是无知或者知识老化，如果看见火车来了极力反对，就是愚昧，不只是反对，还骂街的，就是草包了。然而，我们知道，当年火车进入中国，是有很多满清大臣反对的，说把马给吓着了。
对现代哲学感兴趣的，建议去美国某大学哲学系听一堂课，看看哲学教授们（除了那些研究哲学史的）在研究些什么。不想去听课的，也可以在网上查查人家的论文。下面我简单介绍一下一篇50多年前的重要哲学论文，英文（翻译）标题比较具有刺激性《The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language 》（《通过对语言的逻辑分析废掉形而上学》）。该论文开场写道：
【The development of modern logic has made it possible to give a new and sharper answer to the question of the validity and justification of metaphysics. The researches of applied logic or the theory of knowledge, which aim at clarifying the cognitive content of scientific statements and thereby the meanings of the terms that occur in the statements, by means of logical analysis, lead to a positive and to a negative result. The positive result is worked out in the domain of empirical science; the various concepts of the various branches of science are clarified; their formal-logical and epistemological connections are made explicit. In the domain of metaphysics, including all philosophy of value and normative theory, logical analysis yields the negative result that the alleged statements in this domain are entirely meaningless. Therewith a radical elimination of metaphysics is attained, which was not yet possible from the earlier anti-metaphysical standpoints.】
由于其重要性，我简单翻译如下：
【现代逻辑的发展使我们对形而上学的有效性与合理性给出新的准确的答案成为可能。应用逻辑与知识理论的研究,... 得出了肯定或者否定的答案。肯定性的结果表现在实证科学领域... 在形而上学领域，包括所有价值与规范哲学，逻辑分析得出了否定的结果，那就是这些哲学的命题完全毫无意义。这样，形而上学被完全废除，这在之前是未能做到的】。
该论文接下来解释到”没有意义”不是说形而上学式哲学错误。一个学说有三种可能，right, wrong , 但还有一种可能，借用泡利的词汇就是“not even wrong"。metaphysics正是第三种, meaningless。运用现代逻辑工具，论文把各大哲学给检阅了一遍，就像用现代科学手段揭穿巫师的魔术。论文中有一段对哲学中的”本质”一词进行了剖析，这一招就将传统哲学基本废掉。另一段里，则把黑格尔的什么纯有、纯无的皇帝新衣给扒了下来---当成语义错误给简单处理了。
论文对笛卡尔的“我思故我在” (I think, therefore I am) 分析如下：
【We notice at once two essential logical mistakes: The first lies in the conclusion "I am." The verb "to be" is undoubtedly meant in the sense of existence here; for a copula cannot be used without predicate; indeed, Descartes' "I am" has always been interpreted in this sense. But in that case this sentence violates the above-mentioned logical rule that existence can be predicated only in conjunction with a predicate, not in conjunction with a name (subject, proper name).... The second error lies in the transition from "I think" to "I exist." If from the statement "P( a)" ("a has the property P") an existential statement is to be deduced then the latter can assert existence only with respect to the predicate P, not with respect to the subject a of the premise.... What follows from "I think" is not "I am" but "there exists something that thinks." 】
方枪枪贴出的对”我思故我在”的解释似乎符合上面批判中得出的逻辑分析结果，显然这是在分析哲学对笛卡尔的这个命题进行解剖批驳之后采取的辩解，却并非笛卡尔本人的原意。正如上面引用的论文所说，笛卡尔的原文非常清楚，是在讲自己的存在，而不是自己思维的存在。参见下面附文。
附：笛卡尔上下文（摘自我与帘卷西风的讨论）
其上下文【Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.】
兜了N个圈子。我耐着性子读完之后，他说的是，一个人可以怀疑见到的一切外部事物都不过是梦境一般虚幻，但却不能怀疑自己本身的真实存在。但他对这一点的“证明”却是一个循环逻辑。
而且有一个明显的问题，他对什么叫“真实”或者”存在”没有进行定义。
总之，遇到这种所谓哲学，你只要揪住其关键名词的定义不放就可以揭穿。
兜了N个圈子。我耐着性子读完之后，他说的是，一个人可以怀疑见到的一切外部事物都不过是梦境一般虚幻，但却不能怀疑自己本身的真实存在。但他对这一点的“证明”却是一个循环逻辑。
而且有一个明显的问题，他对什么叫“真实”或者”存在”没有进行定义。
总之，遇到这种所谓哲学，你只要揪住其关键名词的定义不放就可以揭穿。
发表评论 评论 (12 个评论)
- 回复 岳东晓
- 那篇论文很值得一读，不但把古希腊的东东废掉，还点名把Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger 的故弄玄虚全部打为逻辑错误或者句法错误，从而证明，那些东西是自欺欺人，而跟着嚷嚷的也是而二愣子，就像一跳大神的胡言乱语，围观的蒙昧之徒跟着哼哼。
Cateye:
而且论文最后一节分析了传统哲学与神学的关系。【Perhaps we may assume that metaphysics originated from mythology. The child is angry at the wicked table; which hurt him. Primitive man endeavors to conciliate the threatening demon of earthquakes, or he worships the deity of the fertile rains in gratitude. Here we confront personifications of natural phenomena, which are the quasi-poetic expression of man's emotional relationship to his environment. The heritage of mythology is bequeathed on the one hand to poetry, which produces and intensifies the effects of mythology on life in a deliberate way; on the other hand, it is handed down to theology, which develops mythology into a system. Which, now, is the historical role of metaphysics? Perhaps we may regard it as a substitute for theology on the level of systematic, conceptual thinking. 】
- 回复 Cateye
- 等我有空读读。卖弄和讨论还是有区别的。没有自己独立见解，把网上东西copy paste 一番来卖弄的明眼人都能看出来。
岳东晓: 那篇论文很值得一读，不但把古希腊的东东废掉，还点名把Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger 的故弄玄虚全部打为逻辑错误或者句法错误，从而证明，那 ...
- 回复 Cateye
- 我哪里有什么深度，年轻时也赶时髦读过一些哲学方面的书，现在我和一剑一样，务实，在我眼里哲学就是故弄玄虚，还不如宗教来的直接了当。当然21世纪的哲学走向科学被科学引导是必然的，这个根本就不需要争论，事实眼睁睁的摆在哪里，不承认的是孤陋寡闻了。
岳东晓: 你说哲学与宗教类似的观点很有见解，很有深度。
- 回复 岳东晓
- 你很有独立思考力。大部分读过哲学的人，看了那些meaningless的故弄玄虚，往往还以为高深，甚至还装学懂了卖弄。其实就像全能神教众，自欺欺人。
Cateye: 我哪里有什么深度，年轻时也赶时髦读过一些哲学方面的书，现在我和一剑一样，务实，在我眼里哲学就是故弄玄虚，还不如宗教来的直接了当。当然21世纪的哲学走向科 ...
基督教如果没有用希腊哲学进行”理论化”，靠旧约那点东西，是不可能闹这么大的。
- 回复 大音希声
- 这篇文章倒是表达了一些有意义的信息。不过逻辑分析语言本身是应该被质疑的。它导致了对科学迷信，让人类走入逻辑的泥潭。西方人得了一种病，叫逻辑强迫症，正是因为他们的语言里必须带有逻辑。逻辑有好的一面，但也有坏的一面。
