Chapter 20 Chapter 18 How to Read Philosophy Books

Children often ask great questions: "Why are there humans?", "Why do cats do that?", "What was the world's first name?", "Why did God create the world?" If it comes out of the mouth, even if it is not wisdom, at least it is looking for wisdom.According to Aristotle, philosophy comes from doubting.That must have been a question that started in childhood, but most people's doubts only end in childhood. Children are natural questioners.It's not that he asks a lot of questions, but the quality of those questions sets him apart from adults.Adults have not lost their curiosity, which seems to be an innate human trait, but their curiosity has transformed in nature.They want to know if things are the way they are, not why.But children's questions are not limited to those that can be answered in an encyclopedia.

What happened between daycare and college that made your child's problems disappear?Or make the child a more rigid adult, no longer curious about the truth of the facts?Our minds are no longer stimulated by good questions to understand and appreciate the value of the best answers.It is actually very easy to know the answer.But to develop an inquisitive mind-set, to ask really deep questions—that's a whole other story. Why do we have to work hard to develop the mentality that children are born with?As we grow up, for unknown reasons, adults lose the curiosity that was inherent in childhood.Maybe it's because schooling stiffens the mind - the rote learning load is the main cause, though most of it is probably necessary.Another, more likely reason is the parents' fault.Even when there are answers, we often tell our children that there are no answers, or ask them to stop asking questions.We feel embarrassed when confronted with questions that seem to be unanswerable, and we try to cover up our discomfort in this way.All of this dampens a child's curiosity.He may think it's rude to ask a question.The human inquisitiveness was never stifled, but quickly degraded to the questions of most college students—they, like the adults they would become, asked only for information.

We don't have a solution to this problem, and we certainly don't think we can tell you how to answer the deep questions kids ask.But it is important to remind you that the deep questions that the greatest philosophers ask are the same questions that children ask.It is indeed a very rare ability to be able to retain a child's vision of seeing the world and maturely understand the meaning of retaining these issues-only people with this ability may make significant contributions to our thinking. We don't have to think like children to understand what's wrong.Children don't understand, and can't understand, such questions—if anyone does.But we must be able to look at the world with the heart of a child, doubt the questions that children doubt, and understand the questions they ask.The complex lives of adults block the path to truth.Great philosophers have always been able to clarify the complexities of life and see the simple differences - once explained by them, things that were once extremely difficult become very simple.If we are to learn from them, we must ask questions with childlike simplicity—and answer with maturity and wisdom.

※ Questions asked by philosophers What are the problems of "childish simplicity" raised by these philosophers?These questions did not seem simple when we wrote them down, because they were difficult to answer.However, since these questions are so fundamental and fundamental, they sound simple at first glance. Let's take the question of "to be" or "to exist" as an example: What is the difference between existence and non-existence?What is the common denominator of all existing things?What are the qualities of each existing thing?Are there different ways in which things exist—different forms of existence?Do certain things exist only in the mind, or only for the mind?And are other things that exist outside the mind known to us, or are they knowable?Is everything that exists concrete, or are there still things that exist outside of concrete matter?Does everything change, or are there things that remain constant?Is everything necessary to exist?Or should we say: what exists now may not have always existed?Is it possible that the realms that exist are larger than the realms that actually exist?

These are the typical questions a philosopher asks when he wants to explore the qualities of being and the domains of being.Because it is a question, it is not difficult to explain or understand, but to answer it is even more difficult-in fact, it is so difficult that even modern philosophers cannot come up with a satisfactory answer. Another set of questions that philosophers ask is not about being, but has to do with change or becoming.In our experience we do not hesitate to say that certain things exist, but we also say that all these things are subject to change.They existed and then disappeared.While they exist, most move from one place to another, and many of them involve both qualitative and quantitative changes: they become larger or smaller, heavier or lighter, or resemble ripe apples and Steaks that are too old will change in color.

What is involved in change?During every change, is there something that stays the same?And whether there are any aspects of this unchanging thing that still needs to be changed?When you're learning something you didn't know before, you change in some way because of the knowledge you gained, but you're still the same person you were before.Otherwise, you can't say that you have changed because of learning.Is this true of all changes?Is this also true for such a great change as birth and death—that is, the coming and passing of existence?Or is this only true for less important changes, like activity, growth, or some kind of texture change within an area?How many different changes are there?Do all changes have the same basic elements or conditions?Are all of these factors or conditions at play?What do we mean by the cause of change?Are there different reasons for the change?Is the cause of change—or change—the same cause of existence?

Philosophers put forward such a question, that is, from paying attention to the existence of things to paying attention to the transformation of things, and try to establish the relationship between existence and change.Again, these questions are not difficult to state and understand, but extremely difficult to answer clearly and completely.From both examples above, you can see what a childlike innocence they have about the world we live in. Unfortunately, we do not have space to explore all these issues in depth.We can only enumerate some of the questions that philosophers have asked and tried to answer.Those questions are not only about existence or change, but also necessity and chance, matter and immateriality, nature and unnaturalness, freedom and indeterminacy, the power of the human mind and the nature and extent of human knowledge, and the nature and extent of free will. question.

These questions are all speculative or theoretical in the sense of the words we use to distinguish the theoretical from the practical.But you know, philosophy is not limited to theoretical questions. Take good and evil as an example.Children are especially concerned with the difference between good and bad, and if they get it wrong, they may get spanked.But we don't stop caring about the difference between the two until we're adults.Is there a universally recognized distinction between good and evil?Are some things always good and some things always bad, in any situation?Or as Hamlet quoted Montaigne: "There is no such thing as good or bad, it depends on how you think about it."

Of course, good and evil are not the same as right and wrong.These two sets of words seem to be talking about two different things.In particular, even if we feel that everything that is right is good, we may not feel that everything that is wrong is necessarily evil.So, how can we clearly distinguish? "Goodness" is an important philosophical word, and it is also an important word in our daily life.Trying to explain the meaning of goodness is a tricky business.Before you figure it out, you're stuck in philosophical myths.There are many good things, or as we often say, many good deeds.Can these good deeds be put into order?Are some good deeds more important than others?Are some good deeds dependent on other good deeds?Are there situations in which two good works are in conflict, and you must choose one and give up the other?

Again, we do not have space to discuss this issue in depth.We can only enumerate a few other problems in this practical field.There are issues not just of good and evil, right and wrong, or degrees of beneficence, but also duties and responsibilities, virtues and crimes, happiness and goals in life, axioms and justice in relationships and social interactions, etiquette and the relationship of the individual , a good society and a fair government and a sound economy, war and peace and equality. The two kinds of questions we discuss distinguish two main different fields of philosophy.The first group, questions about being and change, have to do with what is and happens in the world.Such questions are the theoretical or speculative part of the field of philosophy.The second group, about good and evil, good and bad, has to do with what we should do or seek, which we call the pragmatic part of philosophy, more correctly the normative philosophy.A book that tells you what to do, like a cookbook, or how to do something, like a driver's manual, instead of arguing about whether you should be a good cook or a good driver, they assume you want to Learning something or doing something just teaches you how to succeed with hard work.In contrast, philosophical normative books are basically concerned with goals that all human beings should aspire to—like living a good life, or organizing a good society—as opposed to cookbooks or driving manuals, and what methods they should use to achieve their goals On this point, it will only provide some of the most general consensus.

The questions that philosophers ask also help to distinguish subcategories within the two broad fields of philosophy.If speculative or theoretical philosophy deals primarily with questions of being, it is metaphysics.If the question is about change—about the evolution of qualities and kinds, the conditions and causes of change—it belongs to natural philosophy.If the main discussion is the problem of knowledge—about our cognition, the origin, scope and limits of human knowledge, questions of certainty and indeterminacy—it belongs to the part of epistemology, also called epistemology.As far as the distinction between theoretical and normative philosophy is concerned, if it is about how to live a good life, the standard of good and evil in individual behavior, this is related to ethics, which is the field of theoretical philosophy; The question of behavior among groups is the domain of political science or political philosophy, that is, of normative philosophy. ※ Modern Philosophy and Inheritance For the sake of brevity, let us take the question of what exists and what happened in the world, or what human beings should do and pursue as the "first priority question".We need to be aware of such issues.Then there are the "secondary questions": questions about what we know in the first question, how we think in answering the first question, how we express our thoughts in words, etc. It is helpful to distinguish between first-order and second-order problems.Because that will help us understand what has changed in philosophy in recent years.The current leading professional philosophers no longer believe that the first-order problems are problems that philosophers can solve.Most professional philosophers these days devote their energies to second-order questions, often asking how to put thought into words. Thinking of the best, there is no harm in being picky about details.The problem is that the number one questions, the ones most likely to be of interest to the lay reader, have been almost entirely abandoned today.In fact, philosophy today, like current science or mathematics, is no longer written for the layman.Secondary questions are, almost by definition, narrower questions, and professional philosophers, like scientists, are concerned only with the opinions of other experts. This makes modern philosophical works extraordinarily difficult for a non-philosopher to read—just as science books are difficult for a non-scientist to read.As long as it is a philosophical work about the second order, we cannot guide you how to read it.Still, there are some philosophical works you can read that we believe you should read.The questions these works raise are what we call first-order questions.Unsurprisingly, these books were also written primarily for the layman, not by professional philosophers for their professional colleagues. Going back to 1930 or a little later, philosophy books were written for a general audience.Philosophers hope that their books will be read by their peers, but also by an educated reader in general.Because the questions they ask and the questions they want to answer are related to ordinary people, they think that ordinary people should also know their thoughts. From Plato onwards, all philosophical classics are written from this point of view.The average lay reader can accept such books, as long as you want to, you can read these books.Everything we've said in this chapter is meant to encourage you to do just that. ※ Philosophical method At least as far as philosophy is concerned with asking and answering the number one question, it is important to understand the standpoint of philosophical method.Suppose you're a philosopher and you're having a hard time with those naive, naive questions we've just raised—questions like the qualities of anything that exists, or the qualities and causes of change.So what should you do? If your question is scientific, you will know how to answer it.You should conduct some kind of specific research, perhaps developing an experiment to test your answer, or observing a wide variety of phenomena for confirmation.If your question is about history, you'll know to do some research too, of course different research.But there is no experimental way to find universal traits.But to find out what the change is and why things change, there is no special phenomenon for you to observe, and there is no document record for you to look for and read.The only thing you can do is think about the problem itself. In short, philosophy is thinking and nothing else. Of course, you are not dreaming in a daze.Really good philosophy is not "pure" thinking—thinking divorced from real-world experience.Ideas cannot be assembled arbitrarily.To answer philosophical questions, there are rigorous tests to confirm whether the answer is logical.But such tests come purely from ordinary experience—experience you have as a human being, not as a philosopher.You understand the phenomenon of "change" as well as anyone else through the common human experience—everything about you changes.As long as the experience of change persists, you can think like a great philosopher about the nature and causes of change.What makes them different from you is that their thinking is extremely meticulous: they can sort out all the most poignant questions they can ask, and then find out the answers carefully and clearly.How did they find out the answer?It is not to observe and explore, nor to seek more experience than ordinary people, but to think about this issue more deeply than ordinary people. Knowing this is not enough.We also need to know that not all the questions raised and answered by philosophers are really philosophical questions.They themselves are not always aware of this, and their omissions or mistakes on this point often multiply the perplexity of the less perceptive reader.To avoid such difficulties, the reader must be able to distinguish between the truly philosophical questions that philosophers deal with, and other questions that they might deal with, but which should in fact be left to later scientists to find the answers to.A philosopher is misled when he does not see that such problems can be solved by scientific investigation—of course, at the time when he wrote, he probably did not foresee this day. One example is that ancient philosophers often asked about the relationship between celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies.Because without the help of telescopes, in their view, the change and movement of celestial bodies is only the movement of position, and there is no problem of birth and disappearance like animals or plants, and they will not change their size or nature.Since the celestial bodies can change in only one way—movement of position—but the terrestrial bodies change in a different way, the ancients concluded that the components that make up the celestial bodies must be different.They did not surmise, and they could not have surmised, that after the invention of the telescope we would know that celestial bodies are more variable than our ordinary experience knows.Therefore, questions that were thought to be answered by philosophers in the past should actually be left for scientists to explore later.Such investigations began with Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's satellites with a telescope, which led to Kepler's revolutionary declaration that the properties of celestial bodies are exactly the same as those on Earth.And this became the basis of Newton's celestial mechanism theory. In the physical universe, all laws of motion are applicable. On the whole, apart from these possible disturbances, the shortcomings of lack of scientific knowledge do not affect the philosophical classics themselves.The reason is that when we read a philosophy book, we are interested in philosophical questions, not scientific or historical questions.Here again, at the risk of repetition, we want to stress that there is no way to answer philosophical questions except by thinking.If we could build a telescope or a microscope to examine the qualities of supposed existence, we should of course do so, but there is no such tool. We do not want to give the impression that only philosophers make the mistakes we speak of.Suppose a scientist is troubled by what kind of life human beings should lead.This is a question of normative philosophy, and there is no other way to answer it than to think about it.But a scientist may not know this and think that some kind of experiment or research will give him the answer.He might ask a thousand people what kind of life they want to live, and his answers are based on those answers.But obviously his answer is nonsensical, as irrelevant as Aristotle's thinking about the heavenly bodies. ※ Philosophical style Although there is only one method of philosophy, at least five styles of discourse have been employed by great philosophers in the Western tradition.Anyone who studies or reads philosophy should be able to discern the differences, and the pros and cons of each style. (1) Philosophical dialogue: The first form of philosophical discourse, although not very effective, first appeared in Plato's "Dialogues) (Dialogues).The style is conversational, even colloquial, a group of people discussing some subject with Socrates (or in some later conversational discussions, with a man called "the Athenian Stranger" [the Athenian Stranger] ). Usually after a hectic exploratory discussion, Socrates would begin by asking a series of questions and then addressing the topic. In the hands of a master like Plato, this style is instructive and indeed leads the reader to discover things for himself This style, combined with the high drama—or comedy—of Socrates' story becomes extremely powerful. Plato did it without saying a word.Whitehead once emphasized that all Western philosophy is but "Plato's footnotes."The later Greeks themselves said: "Whatever I think of, I encounter the shadow of Plato." In any case, don't misunderstand these statements.Plato himself obviously didn't have a philosophical system or a dogma—if it weren't for a dogma, we wouldn't be able to simply keep a conversation going and ask questions.Because Plato, and Socrates before him, have sorted out and asked almost all the important issues that later philosophers thought should be discussed. (2) Philosophical essays or essays: Aristotle was Plato's best student, and he studied under Plato for twenty years.He is also said to have written dialogues, but nothing survives.What remains are some unusually difficult essays or treatises on different subjects.Aristotle was undoubtedly a clear-headed thinker, but the surviving writings are so difficult that many learners thought they were originally lecture or book notes—either his own notes, or those recorded by students who heard the master speak .We may never know the truth of the matter, but in any case, Aristotle's essay is a new style of philosophy. The subjects discussed in Aristotle's treatises, and the various ways in which they were described, expressed his findings and helped to establish the divisions and methods of philosophy in later centuries.Regarding his works, at the beginning they were some so-called popular works—mostly dialogues, and today only some incomplete materials remain.Then comes the collection of documents, the most important of which we know are the individual constitutions of the 158 city-states of Greece.Of these only the constitution of Athens survives, discovered in 1890 from a scroll of papyrus.Finally there are his major treatises like Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics and Poetics.These are purely philosophical works, some theories or norms.One of them, On the Soul, mixed philosophical theory with early scientific research.Other works, such as treatises on biology, are major scientific works in natural history. Although Kant was greatly influenced by Plato from a philosophical point of view, he adopted Aristotle's method of exposition.Unlike Aristotle, Kant's work is fine art.His books deal with the main issues first, then deal with them methodically and in their entirety in all their aspects, and finally, or in passing, discuss special issues.Perhaps the clarity of the works of Kant and Aristotle rests in the order in which they deal with a subject.We can see the beginning, development and end of philosophical discourses from their works.At the same time, especially in the works of Aristotle, we see him presenting views and opposing positions.So, from a certain point of view, the form of the thesis is almost the same as the form of the dialogue.However, there is no dramatic expression in Kant or Aristotle’s works. It is no longer like Plato expressing the discourse by the conflict of positions and viewpoints, but the philosopher directly narrates his own viewpoint. (3) Facing objections: The philosophical style developed in the Middle Ages, with St. Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theology" as the acme, has both the styles of the above two.We have said that most of the questions that are constantly mentioned in philosophy were raised by Plato; we should also say that Socrates asked the kind of simple and profound questions that children would ask during the dialogue.And Aristotle, we also said that he would point out and respond to other philosophers who disagreed. Aquinas' style combines the two modes of asking questions and facing dissent. The Summa Theologica is divided into sections: Treatises, Questions, and Resolutions.All articles have the same format.First asks a question, then presents the opposite (false) answer, then deduces some arguments in support of this false answer, then refutes these arguments first with authoritative texts (usually taken from the Bible), and finally, Aquinas proposes own answer or solution.The opening sentence must be: "I answer as follows", and after stating his own point of view, respond to the discussion of each wrong answer. To a clear mind such orderly form is very attractive.But this is not the most important point in Thomistic philosophy.In Aquinas's works, the most important thing is that he can clearly state all kinds of conflicts, explain all the different points of view, and then face all the different opinions and propose his own solution.From opposition and conflict, truth gradually emerged, which was a very popular idea in the Middle Ages.Philosophers in Aquinas' day accepted this approach, in fact, because they were ready to defend their views in public, or in public debate—often gathering students and other interested parties. .Much of medieval culture was passed on orally, perhaps in part because books were few and far between.For a claim to be accepted as truth, it must be open to the test of public discussion.Philosophers are no longer solitary thinkers, but are challenged by their opponents in the intellectual marketplace (as Socrates might say).Therefore, the "Summa Theological" permeates this spirit of debate and discussion. (4) Philosophical systematization: In the 17th century, a fourth form of philosophical discourse was developed.It was developed by two famous philosophers, Descartes and Spinoza.They were fascinated by how mathematics organized one's knowledge of nature, so they wanted to organize philosophy itself in a similar way to mathematics. Descartes was a great mathematician, and while he might be wrong in some points, he was also a formidable philosopher.Basically, what he was trying to do was to clothe philosophy with mathematics—to give philosophy some definite structural organization, as Euclid had done for geometry 2,000 years ago.In this regard, Descartes was not completely successful, but he advocated clear and independent thinking, and its influence was quite self-evident when compared with the chaotic intellectual atmosphere of the time.He also wrote some philosophical essays in a somewhat traditional style, including some of his responses to objections. Spinoza developed such concepts to a deeper level.His "Ethics" (Ethics) is expressed in a rigorous mathematical way, including propositions, proofs, reasoning, lemmas, marginal notes, etc.However, with respect to metaphysical or ethical issues, mathematical methods are not very satisfying. Mathematical methods are more suitable for geometric or other mathematical problems, and not suitable for philosophical problems.When you read Spinoza, you can skip as much as you can when you read Newton. When you read Kant or Aristotle, you can skip nothing, because their theory is continuous. of.When you read Plato, you cannot omit a little bit, just like when you read an act in a play or read a poem, you miss a part of it, and the whole work is incomplete. Perhaps we can say that there are no absolute rules for the choice of words.The question is, is it possible to achieve satisfactory results by using mathematical methods to write philosophical works like Spinoza?Can writing scientific works in the form of dialogue, like Galileo, produce satisfactory scientific works?In fact, both of these individuals were somehow unable to communicate with whom they wanted to communicate, and it seems likely that this lay in the form of communication they chose. (5) Aphoristic form: There is another form of philosophical discourse worth mentioning, but it is not as important as the previous four.This is the form of aphorism, adopted by Nietzsche in his book Thus Spake Zarathustra (Thus Spake Zarathustra), and also by some modern French philosophers.The popularity of this style in the last century may have been due to the special interest of Western readers in Eastern philosophical works, which were mostly written in the form of aphorisms.Such a form may also come from Pascal's Pensees.Of course, Pascal didn't want his work to appear in such short and enigmatic sentences, but he died before he wanted to write it in article form. The biggest advantage of using aphorisms to explain philosophy is that it is instructive.This will give the reader the impression that there is an implication in these short sentences, which he must use his own thinking to understand—he must be able to find for himself the connections between the various statements, and the standpoints of the different arguments.Likewise, such a form has a great disadvantage, because it is completely indefensible.The author is like a hit-and-run driver who touches on a subject, speaks of relevant truth and insight, and then races off to another subject without properly defending what he has said.Thus the form of aphorism, which is interesting to lovers of poetry, is a headache to serious philosophers, who wish to follow the author's thoughts and comment on him. So far we know of no other significant form of philosophy in the Western cultural tradition. (A book like Lucretius's On the Nature of Things is not an exception. It was originally written in verse, but the style has evolved to be similar to other philosophical treatises. Anyway, today We generally read it translated into prose.) That is, all great philosophical works do not use these five forms of writing, although sometimes philosophers try to write in more than one way.Philosophical treatises, or essays, were and are probably the most common form, and range from the highest and most difficult works, like Kant's book, to the most common philosophical treatises.Dialogue forms are notoriously difficult to write, and geometric forms are both difficult to read and write.The aphoristic form is absolutely unsatisfactory for a philosopher.The Thomas form is a way that is less used in modern times.Perhaps this is also a way that modern readers don't like, but it's a pity that this way has many benefits. ※ Tips for reading philosophy By now it should be clear to the reader that the most important thing in reading any philosophical work is to discover the questions, or the questions the book seeks to answer.These problems may be spelled out, or they may be hidden.Either way, you have to try to find out. How the author will answer these questions is completely controlled by his central ideas and principles.In this regard, the author may also explain it, but not necessarily every book.We have quoted Basil Wiley before about how difficult—and how important—it is to find the author's hidden, unstated assumptions.This applies to every kind of work.It is especially powerful when used in philosophy books. Great works of philosophy do not dishonestly hide their assumptions or make vague definitions or assumptions.What makes a philosopher great is that he can explain more vividly than other writers.In addition, great philosophers have their own specific central ideas and principles behind their works.You can easily tell if he is clearly written in the book you are reading.But he may not do this, and save it for the next book.It is also possible that he will never say it explicitly, but it is mentioned in every book. It is difficult to exemplify the principles of such a central idea.The examples we have given may provoke protest from philosophers, and we have no room here to justify our choices.We can, however, point out what is one of Plato's central tenets—that dialogue on philosophical subjects is, for him, perhaps the most important of all human activities.In Plato's various dialogues, he is rarely seen expressing this point of view-only Socrates in the "Apology" said that the life without reflection is not worth living, and Plato in "Apology" Mentioned in the Seventh Letter.The point is, Plato makes this point in many other places, albeit in a small number of words.For example, in "Protagoras", when the sophist Protagoras was unwilling to continue talking with Socrates, the audience next to him showed a very dissatisfied look.Another example is in the first volume, Cefalus just had something to do, so he left.Although not exhaustive, what Plato seems to be saying is that a person's refusal to participate in the pursuit of truth for any reason is the deepest betrayal of human nature.But, as we have emphasized, one would not normally take this as an "idea" of Plato, since it is almost never explicitly discussed in his writings. We can find other examples in Aristotle.When reading Aristotle, it is important to note at the outset that in all his works the issues discussed are related to each other.The basic principles of logic that he specified in Organon were his assumptions in Physics.其次，由于部分原因归之于这些论文都是未完成的工作，因此他中心思想的原则也就没法到处都很清楚地说明出来。 《伦理学》谈到很多事：幸福、习惯、美德、喜悦等等—可以写上一长串。但是只有最细心的读者才能看出他所领悟的原则是什么。这个领悟就是幸福是善的完整(whole of the good)，而不是最高的(highest)善，因为如果是那样，那就只有一种善了。认知到这一点，我们可以看出幸福并不是在追求自我完美或自我改进的善，虽然这些在一些部分的善中是最高的。幸福，如亚里士多德所言，是一个完整生命的品质。他所说的“完整”不只是从一时的观点来看，也是从整体生命的所有角度来看的。因而我们现在或许可以说，一个幸福的人，是具现了生命的完整，而且一生都保持这种完整的人。这一点几乎影响到《伦理学》中所有其它想法与观点的中心思想，但是在书中却并没有怎么明白说明。 再举个例子。康德的成熟思想通常被认为是批判的哲学。他自己将“批判主义”与“教条主义”作了比较，把过去许多哲学家归类为后者。他所谓的“教条主义”，就是认为只要凭着思考，用不着考虑本身的局限性，人类的知性就可以掌握最重要的真理。照康德的看法，人类的第一要务就是要严格地检查并评估心智的资源与力量。因此，人类心智的局限就是康德中心思想的原则，在他之前没有任何一位哲学家这样说过。在中，这个概念被清楚地解说出来了。但是在康德主要的美学著作《批判力批判(Critique of Judgment)中，却没有说明出来，而只是假设如此。然而，不管怎么说，在那本书里，这还是他的中心思想原则。 关于由哲学作品中找出中心思想的原则，我们能说的就是这些，因为我们不确定能否告诉你如何找到这样的中心思想。有时候那需要花上许多年的时间，阅读很多书，然后又重新阅读过，才能找到。对一个思虑周详的好读者来说，这是一个理想的目标，毕竟，你要记得，如果你想要了解你的作者，这还是你必需要做的事。尽管要找出中心思想的原则很困难，但是我们仍然不主张你走捷径，去阅读一些关于哲学家生活或观察点的书。你自己找到的原则，会比其他人的观点还更有价值。 一旦你找到作者中心思想的原则后，你就会想要看作者怎能将这样的概念在整本书中贯彻到底。遗憾的是，哲学家们，就算是最好的哲学家，通常也做不到这一点。爱默生说过，一贯性“是小智小慧的骗人伎俩"(hobgoblin of little minds)。虽然我们也该记住这个非常轻松的说法，但也不该忘了，哲学家前后不一致是个非常严重的问题。如果哲学家前后说法不一，你就要判断他所说的两个想法中哪一个才是真的—他在前面说的原则，还是最后没有从原则中导引出来的结论？或许你会决定两者都不可信。 阅读哲学作品有些特点，这些特点和哲学与科学的差异有关。我们这里所谈的哲学只是理论性作品，如形上学的论述或关于自然哲学的书。 哲学问题是要去解说事物的本质，而不像科学作品要的是描述事物的本质。哲学所询问的不只是现象之间的联系，更要追寻潜藏在其中的最终原因与条件。要回答这些问题，只有清楚的论述与分析，才能让我们感到满意。 因此，读者最要花力气的就是作者的词义与基本主旨。虽然哲学家跟科学家一样，有一些专门的技术用语，但他们表达思想的词句通常来自日常用语，只是用在很特殊的意义上。读者需要特别注意这一点。如果他不能克服自己，总是想将一个熟悉的字看作一般意义的想法，最后他会让整本书变成胡说八道又毫无意义。 哲学讨论的基本词义就像科学作品一样，当然是抽象的。其实，任何具有共通性的知识，除了抽象的词义外，无从表达。抽象并没什么特别难的。我们每天都在运用，也在各谈话中运用这些抽象词义。不过，似乎很多人都为“抽象”或“具体”的用词而感到困扰。 每当你一般性地谈到什么事情，你就使用抽象的字眼。你经由感官察觉到的永远是具体与个别的，而你脑中所想的永远是抽象又普遍的。要了解一个“抽象的字眼”，就要掌握这个字眼所表达的概念。所谓你对某件事“有了概念”，也就是你对自己具体经验到的某些事情的普遍性层面有了了解。你不能看到，碰触到，甚或想像到这里所谓的普遍性层面。如果你做得到，那么感官与思想就毫无差别了。人们总想想像出是什么概念在困扰他们，最后却会对所有抽象的东西感到绝望。 在阅读科学作品时，归纳性的论证是读者特别需要注意的地方。在哲学作品中也是一样，你一定要很注意哲学家的原则。这很可能是一些他希望你跟他一起接受的假设，也可能是一些他所谓的自明之理。假设的本身没有问题。但就算你有自己相反的假设，也不妨看看他的假设会如何导引下去。假装相信一些其实你并不相信的事，是很好的心智训练。当你越清楚自己的偏见时，你就越不会误判别人的偏见了。 另外有一种原则可能会引起困扰。哲学作品几乎没有不陈述一些作者认为不证自明的主旨。这种主旨都直接来自经验，而不是由其他主旨证明而来。 要记住的是，我们前面已经提过不只一次，这些来自哲学本身的经验，与科学家的特殊经验不同，是人类共同的经验。哲学家并没有在实验室中工作，也不做田野研究调查。因此要了解并测验一位哲学家的主要原则，你用不着借重经由方法调查而获得的特殊经验，这种额外的助力。他诉求的是你自己的普通常识，以及对你自己所生存的这个世界的日常观察。 换句话说，你在阅读哲学书时要用的方法，就跟作者在写作时用的方法是一样的。哲学家在面对问题时，除了思考以外，什么也不能做。读者在面对一本哲学书时，除了阅读以外，什么也不能做—那也就是说，要运用你的思考。除了思考本身外，没有任何其他的帮助。 这种存在于读者与一本书之间的必要的孤独，是我们在长篇大论讨论分析阅读时，一开始就想像到的。因此你可以知道，为什么我们在叙述并说明阅读的规则、认为这些规则用在哲学书上的时候，会比其他书来得更适用。 ※ 厘清你的思绪 一本好的哲学理论的书，就像是好的科学论文，不会有滔滔雄辩或宣传八股的文字。你用不着担心作者的“人格”问题，也不必探究他的社会或经济背景。不过，找一些周详探讨过这个问题的其他伟大的哲学家的作品来读，对你来说会有很实际的帮助。在思想的历史上，这些哲学家彼此之间已经进行了长久的对话。在你确认自己能明白其中任何一人在说些什么之前，最好能仔细倾听。 哲学家彼此意见往往不合这一点，不应该是你的困扰。这有两个原因。第一，如果这些不同的意见一直存在，可能就指出一个没有解决，或不能解决的大问题。知道真正的奥秘所在是件好事。第二，哲学家意见合不合其实并不重要，你的责任只是要厘清自己的思路。就哲学家透过他们的作品而进行的长程对话，你一定要能判断什么成立，什么不成立才行。如果你把一本哲学书读懂了—意思是也读懂了其他讨论相同主题的书—你就可以有评论的立场了。 的确，哲学问题的最大特色就在每个人必须为自己回答这些间题。采用别人的观点并没有解决这些问题，只是在逃避问题而已。你的回答一定要很实在，而且还要有理论根据。总之，这跟科学研究不同，你无法依据专家的证词来回答。 原因是，哲学家所提出的问题，比其他任何人所提的问题都简单而重要。孩子除外。 ※ 关于神学的重点 神学有两种类型，自然神学(natural theology)与教义神学(dogmatic theoloev)。自然神学是哲学的一支，也是形而上学的最后一部分。譬如你提出一个问题，因果关系是否永无止境？每件事是否都有起因？如果你的答案是肯定的，你可能会陷入一种永无止境的循环当中。因此，你可能要设定某个不因任何事物而发生的原始起因的别称。亚里士多德称这种没有起因的原因是“不动的原动者”（unmoved mover)。你可以另外命名—甚至可以说那不过是上帝的别称—但是重点在，你要透过不需要外力支援的—自然进行的—思考，达成这番认知。 教义神学与哲学则不同，因为教义神学的首要原则就是某个宗教的教徒所信奉的经文。教义神学永远依赖教义与宣扬教义的宗教权威人士。 如果你没有这样的信仰，也不属于某个教派，想要把教义神学的书读好，你就得拿出读数学的精神来读。但是你得永远记住，在有关信仰的文章中，信仰不是一种假设。对有信仰的人来说，那是一种确定的知识，而不是一种实验性的观点。 今天许多读者了解这一点似乎很困难。一般来说，在面对教义神学的书时，他们会犯一两个错。第一个错是拒绝接受—即使是暂时的接受—作者首要原则的经文。结果，读者一直跟这些首要原则挣扎，根本注意不到书的本身。第二个错是认为，既然整本书的首要原则是教义的，依据这些教义而来的论述，这些教义所支持的推论，以及所导引出来的结论，都必然也都是属于教义的。当然，如果我们接受某些原则，立足于这些原则的推论也能令人信服，那么我们就必须接受这样所得出的结论—至少在那些原则的范围内如此。但是如果推论是有问题的，那么原来再可以接受的首要原则，也会导出无效的结论。 谈到这里，你该明白一个没有信仰的读者要阅读神学书时有多困难了。在阅读这样的书时，他要做的就是接受首要原则是成立的，然后用阅读任何一本好的论说性作品都该有的精神来阅读。至于一个有信仰的读者在阅读与自己信仰有关的书籍时，要面对的则是另一些困难了。这些问题并不只限于阅读神学才出现。 ※ 如何阅读“经书” 有一种很有趣的书，一种阅读方式，是我们还没提到的。我们用“经书"(canonical)来称呼这种书，如果传统一点，我们可能会称作“圣"(sacred)或“神书”(holy)。但是今天这样的称呼除了在某些这类书上还用得着之外，已经不适用于所有这类书籍了。 一个最基本的例子就是《圣经》。这本书不是被当作文学作品来读，而是被当作神的话语来读。 经书的范围不只这些明显的例子。任何一个机构—教会、政党或社会—在其他的功能之外，如果（1)有教育的功能，(2)有一套要教育的课本(a body of doctrine to teach)，(3)有一群虔诚又顺服的成员，那么属于这类组织的成员在阅读的时候都会必恭必敬。他们不会—也不能—质疑这些对他们而言就是“经书”的书籍的权威与正确的阅读方法。信仰使得这些信徒根本不会发现“神圣的”经书中的错误，更别提要找出其中道理不通的地方。 正统的犹太人是以这样的态度来阅读《旧约》的。基督徒则是这样阅读《新约》。回教徒是这样读。马克思主义信徒则是这样阅读马克思或列宁的作品，有时看政治气候的转变，也会这样读斯大林的作品。弗洛伊德心理学的信徒就是这样读弗洛伊德的。美国的陆军军官是这样读步兵手册的。你自己也可以想出更多的例子。 事实上，对大多数人来说，就算没有严重到那个程度，在阅读某些必须要当作经典的作品时，也是抱着这种心态来读的。一位准律师为了通过律师考试，一定要用虔敬的心来阅读某些特定的教材，才能在考试中赢得高分。对医生或其他专业人士来说也都是如此。事实上，对大多数人来说，还在学生时代时，我们都会依照教授的说法，“虔诚地”阅读教科书。（当然，并不是所有的教授都会把跟他唱反调的学生判为不及格！） 这种阅读的特质，我们或许可以用“正统”两个字来概括。这两个字几乎是放诸四海皆准的，在英文中，“正统”(orthodox)原始的字根来自希腊文，意思是“正确观点”。这类作品是一本或惟一的一本正确的读物，阅读任何其他的作品都会带来危机，从考试失去高分到灵魂遭天谴都有可能。这样的特质是有义务性的。一个忠诚的读者在阅读经书时，有义务要从中找到意义，并能从其他的“事实”中举证其真实性。如果他自己不能这么做，他就有义务去找能做到的人。这个人可能是牧师或祭司，或是党派中的上级指导者，或是他的教授。在任何状况中，他都必须接受对方提供给他的解决之道。他的阅读基本上是没有自由可言的。相对地，他也会获得阅读其他书所没有的一种满足感当作回报。 其实我们该停止了。阅读《圣经》的问题—如果你相信那是神的话语—是阅读领域中最困难的一个问题。有关如何阅读《圣经》的书，加起来比所有其他指导阅读的书的总和还多。所谓上帝的话语，是人类所能阅读的作品中最困难的一种，而如果你真的相信那是上帝的话语，对你来说也是最重要的一种。信徒阅读这本书要付出的努力和难度成正比。至少在欧洲的传统中，《圣经》是一本有多重意义的书。在所有的书籍中，那不只是读者最广泛，同时也是被最仔细地阅读的一本书。