作者：孙健
出版社：华东理工大学出版社有限公司
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
留园西方经典文化阅读：西方哲学史(英文版)试读：
序言
提到哲学，大部分人都会不由自主地“望而却步”。传统观念认为哲学就是“高深莫测”的东西，这一误解让很多中国学子对哲学“拒之门外”。而一贯以来重理工、轻人文的教育环境，让中国学生对“文史哲”的价值感越来越模糊，继而也不愿意将本就非常紧张的学习时间和精力投入到哲学的学习中。
但是，随着关注国际教育的人越来越多，很多家庭即使还没有下定决心让自己的孩子走国际教育之路，内心中也依然希望自己的孩子可以接触并接受国际教育理念。想要更好地完成国际教育，实现“读名校，有成就”的目标，首先就要学好英语。而国际教育的标准对“学好英语”的要求，是超越语言水平的。网络上流传着大量关于批判性思维（Critical Thinking）的讨论，虽然有些偏颇，但是却在一定程度上暗示了国际教育背景下的英语学习的方向，即学会用英语进行思考。
用英语进行思考，首先要学会的就是思考的方法。滋养英语的土壤是欧洲文化，其根源在古希腊和古罗马。希腊语、拉丁语，与盎格鲁—撒克逊等语言的结合，催生了古英语，而法语等语言的影响，又促成了现代英语的出现。寻根究底，其源头依然在古希腊和古罗马。而这两大欧洲文明的根源，都非常重视哲学思考，这也是英语单词Philosophy（爱智慧）的由来。
因此，想要将英语学习到可以用来进行思考的程度，没有基本的英语哲学训练，是难以实现的。除此之外，学好英语，“初级阶段是听口训练，高级阶段是读写训练”，这已经成为一种共识。所谓读，就是要多读书。但是，读书与有效读书是有巨大差异的。完整地读过一本英文原版书，或是接触过学术性英语考试（比如美国高考SAT，美国研究生入学考试GRE和GMAT）的人，都可能会有相似的感受——看懂英文的字面意思，但是无法理解其真正的含义。究其原因，就是还没有做到“文史哲”三位一体。文学（文字）是血肉，历史是骨架，哲学是灵魂。没有骨架和灵魂，只有血肉，当然是无法真正理解的。
自2016年开始，我正式投入研究双语分级阅读课程体系，立愿要开发出一套“适合中国人学习英语的课程”并主持编撰一套“适合中国人学习的英语书籍”。这过程中，走过很多弯路，也有过很多困惑。几经挫折，我们逐渐梳理出一套科学的体系：学好英语，要按照难度分级，分级教材要兼顾中国和英语国家的文化，兼顾文化需要从文学、历史和哲学三大方面入手，最后打通基础英语、能力英语、应试英语和人文英语四个阶段，真正实现“学好英语，向世界介绍中国文化”的英语学习目标。
这本《西方哲学史》和其姊妹篇《AP英语文学与写作》，共同肩负着重要的使命。希望这套丛书，连同双语分级阅读课程，可以真正帮到学习者，用正确的方法，以更高的目标，学习国际教育体系下的英文。孙 健2018年仲夏于北京中关村
Brief Introduction
The philosophical ideas presented in the following chapters form much of the basis of contemporary Western philosophical thought. These ideas and their development span millenia,dating back to ancient Greece, where abstract thought about the ultimate nature of the world and human life appeared as a manifestation of the urge to transition from acceptance of superstition towards explanation. For the purposes of this book,we divide Western philosophy into three areas/eras: Ancient(Greco-Roman), Medieval (Christian-European), and Modern.This course focuses on some of the prominent Western thinkers of both ancient and modern times, exploring some of their most compelling ideas about the world and humanity. This course should invite students to ask, think, argue and reason, as well as encourage them to appreciate the many connections and differences between the thinkers presented. Our hope is that there is inspiration herein for students to learn and effectively present their own thoughts regarding the many ideas they will encounter.
Socrates
-The unexamined life is not worth livingChapter 1SocratesThe unexamined life is not worth living.Historical BackgroundWho Was Socrates?
Socrates (苏格拉底，470 - 399 B. C.) is possibly the most enigmatic figure in the entire history of philosophy. He never wrote a single line.Yet he is one of the philosophers who has had the greatest influence on European thought, not least because of the dramatic manner of his death. Socrates was widely accepted as the Father of philosophy,the thinkers or philosophers before him were mainly recognized as devoting their attention to questions about the origin and nature of the physical world, it is Socrates whose dedication to careful reasoning and focus in the nature and truth concerning humanity, e.g. ethics, transformed the entire enterprise. These thinkers before Socrates were called in history “Presocratics”.We know he was born in Athens, and that he spent most of his life in the city squares and marketplaces talking with the people he met there. Even during his lifetime he was considered somewhat enigmatic, and fairly soon after his death he was held to be the founder of any number of different philosophical schools of thought. Since he sought genuine knowledge rather than mere victory over an opponent, Socrates employed the same logical tricks developed by the Sophists to a new purpose, the pursuit of truth. Thus, his willingness to call everything into question and his determination to accept nothing less than an adequate account of the nature of things made him the first clear exponent of critical philosophy. It was also said of him that “You can seek him in the present, you can seek him in the past, but you will never find his equal.” Nevertheless, he was sentenced to death for his philosophical activities. He could have begged for mercy from the public or escaped with the help of friends, yet he chose the death.
We know that although Socrates was well known during his own time for his conversational skills and public teaching, he wrote nothing, so we are dependent upon his students (especially Xenophon [色诺芬] and Plato) for any detailed knowledge of his methods and results. The life of Socrates is mainly known to us through the writings of Plato (柏拉图), who was one of his pupils and who became one of the greatest philosophers of all time. The trouble is that Plato was himself a philosopher who often injected his own theories into the dialogues he presented to the world as discussions between Socrates and other famous figures of the day. Nevertheless,it is usually assumed that at least the early dialogues of Plato provide a fairly accurate representation of Socrates himself.Reflective ReadingTopic 1 A Taste of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues
Guiding Questions:
If someone asks you what justice is, how would you answer? Do you agree that treating friends well and enemies badly is justice? Why? Write down what you think.
Read the following dialogue (an excerpt from Plato’s dialogue “Republic”) between Socrates and Polemarchus. What is this excerpt about? What are the characteristics of this excerpt? Think about how Socrates communicated with his interlocutor. Do you agree with Socrates?
Polemarchus: It is just to give to each what is owed to him.
Socrates: Clearly, he does not mean giving back to someone whatever he has lent to you,even if he is out of his mind when he asks for it. And yet what he has lent to you is surely something that is owed to him, isn’t it?
Polemarchus: Yes.
Socrates: But when he is out of his mind, it is, under no circumstances, to be given to him.
Polemarchus: True. I meant friends owe something good to their friends, never something bad.
Socrates: I understand. You mean someone does not give a lender what he is owed by giving him gold, when the giving and taking would be harmful, and both he and the lender are friends.
Polemarchus: It certainly is.
Socrates: Now what about this? Should one also give to one’s enemies whatever is owed to them?
Polemarchus: Yes, by all means. What is in fact owed to them? And what an enemy owes an enemy, in my view, is also precisely what is appropriate—something bad.
Socrates: Is it just to give to each what is appropriate to him? And this is what you call giving him what he is owed.
Polemarchus: If we are to follow the previous answers, Socrates, it gives benefit to friends and harm to enemies.
Socrates: Treating friends well and enemies badly is justice?
Polemarchus: I believe so.
Socrates: Then it follows, Polemarchus, that it is just for many people — the ones who are mistaken in their judgment — to harm their friends, since they are bad for them,and benefit their enemies, since they are good.
Polemarchus: I should change my definitions. Someone who is both believed to be good and is good is a friend; someone who is believed to be good, but is not, is believed to be a friend but is not. And the same goes for enemies.
Socrates: Should a just man really harm anyone whatsoever?
Polemarchus: Of course. He should harm those who are both bad and enemies.
Socrates: When horses are harmed, do they become better or worse?
Polemarchus: Worse.
Socrates: With respect to the one that makes horses good.
Polemarchus: Yes.
Socrates: And what about human beings, comrade; shouldn’t we say that, when they are harmed, they become worse with respect to human virtue?
Polemarchus: Of course.
Socrates: But isn’t justice human virtue?
Polemarchus: Yes, that’s necessarily so, too.
Socrates: Then, my dear Polemarchus, people who have been harmed are bound to become more unjust.
Polemarchus: So it seems.
Socrates: Now, can musicians use music to make people unmusical?
Polemarchus: No, they can’t.
Socrates: Well, then, can just people use justice to make people unjust? In a word, can good people use their virtue or goodness to make people bad?
Polemarchus: No, they can’t.
Socrates: Nor the function of dryness to make things wet, but that of its opposite.
Polemarchus: Of course.
Socrates: So it isn’t the function of a just person to harm a friend or anyone else,Polemarchus, but that of his opposite, an unjust person.
Polemarchus: I think you are absolutely right, Socrates.
Socrates: So if someone tells us it is just to give to each what he is owed, and understands by this that a just man should harm his enemies and benefit his friends, the one who says it is not wise. I mean, what he says is not true. For it has become clear to us that it is never just to harm anyone.
Polemarchus: I agree.Topic 2 The Art of Discourse
Guiding Questions:
Do you like discussion? Can you record a time that you actually learnt something important through discussion with others or that you realized some of your mistakes through discussion with others? Please write it down.
Read the following excerpt and think about: What is Socratic Irony (苏格拉底式的佯作无知)?How does Socrates do philosophy?The Art of Discourse
The essential nature of Socrates’ art lay in the fact that he did not appear to want to instruct people. On the contrary, he gave the impression of one desiring to learn from those he spoke with. So instead of lecturing like a traditional schoolmaster, he discussed.
Obviously he would not have become a famous philosopher had he confined himself purely to listening to others. Nor would he have been sentenced to death. But he just asked questions,especially to begin a conversation, as if he knew nothing. In the course of the discussion he would generally get his opponents to recognize the weakness of their arguments, and, forced into a corner, they would finally be obliged to realize what was right and what was wrong.
Socrates, whose mother was a midwife, used to say that his art was like the art of the midwife.She does not herself give birth to the child, but she is there to help during its delivery.Similarly, Socrates saw his task as helping people to “give birth” to the correct insight, since real understanding must come from within. It cannot be imparted by someone else. And only the understanding that comes from within can lead to the true insight.
Let me put it more precisely: The ability to give birth is a natural characteristic. In the same way, everybody can grasp philosophical truths if they just use their innate reason. Using your innate reason means reaching down inside yourself and using what is there.
By playing ignorant, Socrates forced the people he met to use their common sense. Socrates could feign ignorance—or pretend to be dumber than he was. We call this Socratic irony. This enabled him to continually expose the weaknesses in people’s thinking. He was not averse to doing this in the middle of the city square. If you met Socrates, you thus might end up being made a fool of publicly.
So it is not surprising that, as time went by, people found him increasingly exasperating,especially people who had status in the community. “Athens is like a sluggish horse,” he is reputed to have said, “and I am the gadfly trying to sting it into life.”Topic 3 A Divine Voice
Guiding Questions:
What was this “divine voice” that Socrates talked about? What did Socrates think the truth is?A Divine Voice
It was not in order to torment his fellow beings that Socrates kept on stinging them. Something within him left him no choice. He always said that he had a “divine voice” inside him. Socrates protested, for example, against having any part in condemning people to death. He moreover refused to inform on his political enemies. This was eventually to cost him his life.
In the year 399 B.C., he was accused of “introducing new gods and corrupting the youth,” as well as not believing in the accepted gods. With a slender majority, a jury of five hundred found him guilty.
He could very likely have appealed for leniency. At least he could have saved his life by agreeing to leave Athens. But had he done this, he would not have been Socrates. He valued his conscience and the truth higher than life. He assured the jury that he had only acted in the best interests of the state. He was nevertheless condemned to drink hemlock. Shortly thereafter, he drank the poison in the presence of his friends, and died.
Why did Socrates have to die? People have been asking this question for 2,400 years. However,he was not the only person in history to have seen things through to the bitter end and suffered death for the sake of their convictions.
I have mentioned Jesus already, and in fact there are several striking parallels between them.
Both Jesus and Socrates were enigmatic personalities, also to their contemporaries. Neither of them wrote down their teachings, so we are forced to rely on the picture we have of them from their disciples. But we do know that they were both masters of the art of discourse. They both spoke with a characteristic self-assuredness that could fascinate as well as exasperate. And not least, they both believed that they spoke on behalf of something greater than themselves. They challenged the power of the community by criticizing all forms of injustice and corruption. And finally—their activities cost them their lives.
The trials of Jesus and Socrates also exhibit clear parallels.
They could certainly both have saved themselves by appealing for mercy, but they both felt they had a mission that would have been betrayed unless they kept faith to the bitter end. And by meeting their death so bravely they commanded an enormous following, also after they had died. I do not mean to suggest that Jesus and Socrates were alike. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that they both had a message that was inseparably linked to their personal courage.
Guiding Question:
Compare and contrast Socrates’ trials and Jesus’ trials recorded in The Bible, think about the similarities and the differences. What is the truth according to Socrates and Jesus?Jesus’ Words Concerning Truth
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” —John 14: 6
“Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”—John 17: 17
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are my disciples.Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Jesus before Pilate—John 18: 28-40
Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace,because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”
“If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”
Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”
“But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected. This took place to fulfill what Jesus had said about the kind of death he was going to die.
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What
is it you have done?”
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”
They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.Topic 4 The Right Insight Leads to the Right Action
There’s only one virtue
—knowledge
and only one evil
—ignorance.
Guiding Questions:
Do you agree with the sentence above? Why or why not? Please write down what you think.
Read the following excerpt. Do you agree with Socrates that the right insight leads to the right action?The Right Insight Leads to the Right Action
As I have mentioned earlier, Socrates claimed that he was guided by a divine inner voice, and that this “conscience” told him what was right. “He who knows what good is will do good,” he said.
By this he meant that the right insight leads to the right action. And only he who does right can be a “virtuous man.” When we do wrong it is because we don’t know any better. That is why it is so important to go on learning. Socrates was concerned with finding clear and universally valid definitions of right and wrong. Unlike the Sophists, he believed that the ability to distinguish between right and wrong lies in people’s reason and not in society.
You may perhaps think this last part is a bit too obscure, Sophie. Let me put it like this: Socrates thought that no one could possibly be happy if they acted against their better judgment. And he who knows how to achieve happiness will do so. Therefore, he who knows what is right will do right. Because why would anybody choose to be unhappy?
Can you live a happy life if you continually do things you know deep down are wrong? There are lots of people who lie and cheat and speak ill of others. Are they aware that these things are not right—or fair, if you prefer? Do you think these people are happy? Socrates didn’t.Further Reading
Plato’s Socratic Dialogues
Plato was Socrates’ most famous disciple, and the majority of what most people know about Socrates is known about Plato’s Socrates. Plato’s Socratic Dialogues (《苏格拉底式对话》) feature Socrates as the principal speaker, challenging his interlocutor to elaborate on and critically examine his own views while typically not putting forth substantive claims of his own. The followings are two of the most famous of Plato’s Socratic dialogues.
Introduction to Plato’s Apology
Plato’s Apology (《申辩篇》) is the only monologue in Plato’s works, the rest are all dialogues.It is an account of the defense Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged for inventing new deities, despising the gods recognized by the state and corrupting the youth of Athens.The word “apology” here is unquestionably by no means being translated or understood in a modern sense; Socrates was certainly not apologizing for his conduct but instead defending it. The name of Plato’s dialogue derives from the Greek word “apologia”, which translates as a defense or a speech made in defense. Most of the “apologia” were published in the decade after the trial of Socrates.
In Plato’s Apology that Socrates started his speech with this famous line “that philosophy begins with an admission of ignorance”, this points to the essence of philosophy which is to pursue wisdom. Socrates clarified further in the dialogue that true wisdom is knowing that one knows nothing.
At the trial, Socrates claimed that he would not use carefully arranged sumptuous words or phrases, but speak with honesty and directness. He started out by inviting the jury to judge him based on the truth of his statements rather than his oratorical skills. He explained that his behavior was only his reaction to the prophecy from the oracle at Delphi declaring him to be the wisest man of all. After conversing with many of his fellow Athenians, he realized that he was probably the only person who recognized his own ignorance, thus made it his mission to question the supposed “wise” men in his city and expose them of their folly. Not just to the individuals, Socrates believed his action was to the best of his city as a whole. In one of his famous speeches, Socrates described himself as a gadfly that stirred up the sluggish horse which was the state of Athens, so it would not fall into a deep sleep but being wakened to become more productive and virtuous. Consequently, his behavior earned much admiration from many Athenian youths, at the same time aroused much anger from the people he embarrassed, he believed this was the reason he was put on trial. Despite of Socrates’ initial claim of being ignorant, he still outdid his accusers and the orators by his persuasive and wise speeches and demonstrated to his opponents what they should have done.
As a result, Socrates was found guilty only by a minority. Yet in order to conciliate the prejudices of the jury, Socrates was offered the opportunity to propose a penalty for a modest concession to the charges of impiety and corruption. Socrates rejected prison and exile,suggested to only pay a small fine and jokingly claimed to deserve a great meal for offering such great service to his state. Not only Socrates’ suggestion was refused, he was eventually condemned to death. Rather than avoiding death, Socrates chose to accept the verdict, for he believed that apart from god, no one could be sure of what would happen after death and it would be foolish of him to fear
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]