本体论论证

感谢下载In播客节目。

Thanks for downloading the In podcast.

欲了解更多《In Our Time》详情及使用条款，请访问bbc.co.uk/radiofour。

For more details about In Our Time and for our terms of use, please go to bbc.co.uk/radiofour.

希望您喜欢这个节目。

I hope you enjoy the program.

你好。

Hello.

11世纪末，一位名为安瑟伦的意大利人——法国北部修道院的院长，后于十月成为坎特伯雷大主教——开始着手解决一个哲学难题。

In the late eleventh century, a man called Anselm, an Italian prio at a monastery in Northern France who became archbishop of Canterbury in October, started to wrestle with a philosophical problem.

他想要证明上帝的存在。

He wanted to prove the existence of god.

某日晨祷时灵光乍现，他顿悟了答案，并将其记录在如今被称为《独白》的著作中。

In a revelation of inspiration at Matins one morning, he saw the solution and wrote it down in a work known today as the discourse.

这就是本体论论证。

It's the ontological argument.

安瑟伦相信他发现了一个能证明上帝存在的单一论证。

Anselm believed he had found a single argument which demonstrate that god exists.

这是一条简单却经久不衰的推理路线，尽管过去九百年来，许多哲学家都试图推翻它。

It's a simple line of reasoning which has proved enduring, although in the last nine hundred years, many philosophers have had a have had a go to disprove it.

笛卡尔、休谟和康德都就此撰写过重要著作，年轻的伯特兰·罗素甚至在去烟草店的路上经历了哲学顿悟，高呼'伟大的穿靴上帝啊，本体论论证是可靠的'。

Descartes, Hume, and Kant all wrote important works about it, and the young Bertrand Russell experienced a philosophical epiphany on a trip to the tobacconist declaring, great god in boots, the ontological argument is sound.

与我共同讨论本体论论证的嘉宾有：圣安德鲁斯大学哲学教授约翰·霍尔丹、牛津大学赫特福德学院哲学教授彼得·米利肯，以及伦敦国王学院宗教哲学讲师克莱尔·卡莱尔。

With me to discuss the ontological argument are John Haldane, professor of philosophy at the University of St Andrews Peter Millican, professor of philosophy at Hertford College Oxford and Claire Carlisle, lecturer in philosophy of religion at King's College London.

彼得·米利肯，据我所知，哲学家们普遍认可三种主要论证上帝存在的方式。

Peter Millican, philosophers as I understand it recognize three main types of argument for the existence of God.

你能先概述一下这三种论证吗？

Would you begin by outlining what these three are?

好的，当然可以。

Yes, certainly.

这是三种最著名的论证类型。

These are the three sort of most famous kinds.

还有其他类型的论证。

There are others.

但它们分别是本体论论证、宇宙论论证和设计论论证。

But they're the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the design argument.

设计论论证可能是最广为人知的一种。

The design argument is probably the most familiar one.

它主张观察这个世界，看看它是多么精妙地被设计——所有的动物、植物，或许还有那些完美协调以造就这般世界的自然法则，都是智能设计的迹象。

That look around the world, see how wonderfully designed it is, all these animals, plants, maybe the laws of nature beautifully attuned to produce this kind of world, they're all signs of intelligent design.

这就是设计论论证，也被称为目的论论证。

So that's the design argument, also called the teleological argument.

然后是宇宙论

Then the cosmological

所以这个论证中必然存在一位设计者？

So there must be a designer in that argument?

正是如此。

Exactly.

这个观点认为存在智能设计，那么必然存在一位设计者。

The idea that there's intelligent design, there must be a designer.

正是如此。

Exactly.

然后是宇宙论论证，它基于关于世界更为简化的前提，比如仅仅存在万物这一事实。

Then there's the cosmological argument, which relies on much sparser premises about the world, like just that there is anything.

存在万物而非虚无的事实需要一个解释或最初的原因。

The fact that there is anything at all rather than nothing requires an explanation or an original cause.

我们发现一切事物都有其原因。

We find everything has a cause.

如果我们追溯因果链条，最终必然会到达第一因。

If we trace back the chain of causes, then ultimately we must come to a first cause.

而基于各种理由，这个第一因就是上帝。

And that, for various reasons, is God.

因此，与设计论证不同，宇宙论论证是从关于世界非常普遍的事实出发的——比如世界存在本身，以及事物间存在因果关系这些基本事实。

So a cosmological argument as opposed to a design argument goes from very general facts about the world, that there's a world at all, that there are causal relations in things at all.

本体论论证的起点更为基础。

Now the ontological argument starts from even less.

它仅基于对神的定义。

It just takes a definition of god.

神是最完美的存在。

God is the most perfect being.

存在即是一种完美。

Existence is a perfection.

因此，神必然存在。

Therefore, god must exist.

这是对笛卡尔所用论证的一种粗略模仿。

That's a very crude parody, something like the argument that Descartes used.

但你可以看到，设计论证诉诸于世界组织方式的丰富事实，而宇宙论论证则诉诸于世界存在本身这一事实。

But you can see that whereas the design argument is appealing to quite rich facts about the way the world is organised, the cosmological argument is appealing to the fact that there is a world at all.

而因果链条会追溯到第一因？

And that the causes go back to the first cause?

是的。

Yes.

没错。

That's right.

这类论证通常认为无限回溯是不可能的。

It standardly involves these kinds of arguments that you can't have an infinite regress.

必须存在一个万物的第一因。

There must be a first cause of everything.

但本体论论证是我们所说的先验论证。

But the ontological argument is what we call a priori.

也就是说，它试图完全不依赖任何经验前提，不依赖任何关于世界现状的前提来进行论证。

That is, it aspires to argue from no empirical premises, no premises about the way the world is at all.

它仅仅从对神的定义或理解出发，比如神是最完美的存在之类的概念。

It just starts from a a definition or an understanding of what god is, a most perfect being or something like that.

你能给我们讲讲安瑟伦吗？他最早提出的理论后来被康德称为本体论论证。

Can you tell us a bit about Anselm who first formulated what became known later, actually, by Kant as the ontological argument?

没错。

That's right.

是的。

Yes.

嗯，安瑟伦，如你所说，他曾在诺曼底的贝克修道院生活，后来成为那里的院长。

Well, Anselm, as you said, he he had been in the Abbey Of Beck in Normandy, and he became abbot there.

然后在十月，他被任命为坎特伯雷大主教。

And then in October, he was appointed as archbishop of Canterbury.

实际上他是诺曼征服后的第二任大主教。

He was actually the second archbishop following the Norman conquest.

但更早之前，他已出版了通常被称为《独白》的著作，其中提出了这个精妙的论证，这似乎是他独创的。

But earlier than that, he had published the the work commonly known as the prose log logon in which he presented this neat argument, and it seems to be original with him.

这个论证比笛卡尔的要复杂一些。

Now it it's a bit more complicated than Descartes' argument.

我提到笛卡尔基本上是说，上帝是一个完美的存在。

I mentioned Descartes basically says, god is a perfect being.

存在即完美。

Existence is perfection.

安瑟伦想要做的是聚焦于神的概念——一个无法想象更伟大的存在。

What Anselm wants to do is focus on the concept of god as something than which nothing greater can be thought.

因此根据定义，神是如此伟大，以至于你无法想象任何更伟大的事物。

So god is, by definition, something so great that you can't possibly think of anything greater.

我现在可以转向约翰·霍尔德吗？

Can I turn to John Holder now?

这是否如我们所读的那样，是来自启示？

Is this did this come as you we read that it came in a revelation.

这个概念之前出现过吗？

Had it happened before, this notion?

之前有人提出过这个想法吗？

Had somebody had the idea before?

嗯，我认为——就刚才提到的内容而言——在这部《论证》文本之前，他还有另一部文本概述了之前提到的各类论证，而他被一个想法所震撼：从某种意义上说，这应该更简单才对。

Well, I think that I mean, just to pick up on what's been said, prior to this proselogion text, he's got another text in which he outlines various arguments of the sort that have been mentioned earlier, and he's struck by the thought that in some sense, it ought to be simpler than this.

是否应该存在一个核心论点，一个单一的理念，而非所有这些关于设计等等的复杂论证？

There ought to is there a master argument, a single idea, all these elaborate arguments about design and one thing or another?

这些都很好，但有没有某个单一理念能解决问题？

That's all very well, but is there some single idea that will do it?

而他深受触动的是——我认为这是个非常深刻的见解——某些理念与现实之间存在联系，并且存在与之对应的现实。

And what he is very struck by, this is a very profound thought, I think, is that there is some connection between certain sorts of ideas and the reality and there being a reality to which they correspond.

这个想法其实非常古老。

Now, that that thought is a very ancient one.

我认为可以追溯到哲学几乎刚起源的时期，或者说至少在很早的时候，公元前五世纪，特别是想到巴门尼德，他写了一首非常长的诗，但我们现在只留存了一些片段，在其中他提出：探究应当如何进行？

I would trace this back to pretty much the beginnings of philosophy, or at Henry, it's very early on, five centuries before the common era, in particular, I think of Parmenides, and Parmenides wrote some massively long poem of only of which we only have some remaining fragments, but in that, he says, how is to inquire how is inquiry to go on?

嗯，我们要么可以思考不存在的事物，但那毫无意义，要么可以思考存在的事物。

Well, we can either think about what is not, but that makes no sense, or we can think about what is.

所以，这就是他所谓的存在之道，而且他在很早的时候就论证过，只有存在的事物才能被思考。

So, this is what he calls the way of being, and very early on in that, he argues that only what is can be thought.

对吧？

Right?

在清晰思考的可能性——即真实思考——与存在之间存在着某种紧密联系。

That there's some tight connection between the possibility of thinking clearly, as it were, thinking truly, and what is.

所以我认为其根源

So I think that the roots

这包括‘存在’这个词吗？

of that Would this include the word exists?

对。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

那是

That's

另一个论点。

a different argument.

存在或实存等等。

Being or exists and so on.

因此，他会这样说：只有存在的事物才能被思考为存在。

So, what he would say is this, only what is can be thought to be.

明白吗？

Alright?

这就是这里的核心思想。

That's the sort of central idea here.

这是个非常神秘的观点，可以通过多种方式展开阐述。

Now, it's a very mysterious thought that could be elaborated in various ways.

这看起来不太可信，但巴门尼德斯对此进行了回应。

It doesn't seem very plausible, but Parmenides addresses that.

但这个思想在几个世纪里不断产生回响。

But this thought resonates resonates down through the centuries.

柏拉图继承了这个观点，他认为思维与存在之间有着紧密联系。

It gets picked up by Plato, who sees a tight connection between thinking and being.

这个观点又被普罗提诺所采纳——他是新柏拉图主义发展的主要影响者，后来又被基督教传统中的奥古斯丁重新吸收，成为奥古斯丁思想体系中的一条主线。

It gets picked up by somebody called Plotinus, who's a principal influence in the development of Neo Platonism, and it's picked up again by Augustine in the Christian tradition, and it becomes a thread within Augustinian thinking.

也就是说，基督教思想中这一支流的哲学起源可追溯至普罗提诺和柏拉图。

That is to say that strand of Christian thought whose origins, philosophical origins, lie with Plotinus and Plato.

有趣的是，那些被本体论论证所打动的人——我指的是历史上接受并发展它的人——或多或少都以某种方式继承了奥古斯丁、普罗提诺和柏拉图的传统。

And the interesting thing is this, those people who are impressed by the ontological argument, I mean, historically who take it up and so on, all more or less stand in one way or another in that Augustinian, Plotinian, platonic tradition.

例如，笛卡尔就深受奥古斯丁的影响。

So, example, Descartes is very impressed by Augustine.

安瑟伦在思想形成上也是奥古斯丁主义的，等等。

Anselm is is Augustinian in formation and so on.

所以，我认为这里有一个深刻的根源，即如果你能清晰明确地思考某事物，这在某种意义上就是对其现实性和真理性的保证。

So, I think there's a deep root here, which is the thought that if you can think of something clearly and distinctly and so on, that is in some sense a guarantee of its reality, of its truth.

他所做的，是将这一理念应用于这个超级概念——至高存在的概念，并认为如果你能思考它，那么在某种意义上，它必然存在。

And what he does is applies that to this super concept, the concept of a supreme being, and thinks if you can think that, then in a sense, there must be one.

所以你的做法是，提出一个陈述作为起点，并以此为基础通过逻辑发展形成信念。

So what you do is you take, you make a statement, which is a standing start and the basis for logical development into a conviction.

嗯，他谈到上帝是那个无法被想象出更伟大的存在。

Well, he talks about god being that than which nothing greater can be thought.

所以在我看来，他只是在做一个插入，一个声明，不是吗？

So that seems to me he's just making insertion, a declaration, isn't he?

嗯，不是的。

Well, no.

我认为他是在引用这一时期也一直被提及的观点。

I think he's picking up on something that would be has been said as well through this period.

例如

For example

是啊，但这仍然是个声明，不是吗？

Yeah, but it's still a declaration, isn't it?

抱歉。

It sorry.

这确实是，但你看，比如奥古斯丁，比他早六七百年，就有过类似的表述。

It it it is, but look, mean, Augustine, for example, seven hundred years or six hundred years before this, has a similar phrase.

他说，上帝是那无法想象更伟大的存在。

He says, God is that than which nothing greater can be or be thought.

因此，上帝是至高无上的终极实在这一观念。

So this idea that God is the supreme ultimate reality.

对于汉斯·阿尔姆所面向的知识界读者或听众而言，他们都会认同这一点。

Now, for any reader or listener in this intellectual world to which Hans Alm is speaking, they would agree with that.

就是这样。

That's it.

确实如此。

That's it.

没错。

Yes.

说得对。

That's right.

那么，我们在讨论什么？

So, what are talking about?

上帝是至高无上的。

God is the supreme.

抱歉。

Sorry.

我能问吗？因为这是我接下来想问你的问题，约翰。

Can I because it's the next question I was gonna ask you, John?

他是在人们会接受这一观点的背景下讨论这个的，而现在很多人一开始就不会接受这个观点。

He's talking about this in the context in which people would accept this as a proposition, whereas many people now would simply not accept it as a proposition to begin with.

嗯，这大概正是我们要探讨的，因为我认为这是一个

Well, that's probably what we're explore because I think it's a

定义安瑟伦的中世纪世界以及他为何产生如此大影响的原因。

definition Anselm's medieval world and why he made so much impact.

你提到了阿门尼德斯和奥古斯丁。

You've talked about Ammenides and Augustine.

你提出了这一点。

You brought it forth.

但为什么它如此重要？在11世纪他的世界里，究竟是什么让它如此受欢迎地进入哲学讨论并延续至今？

But why did it so have and what is what what was in his world in the eleventh century that that allowed it to be welcomed so much into philosophical discourse and continue there till this day,

直到现在？

till now?

当然。

Sure.

记得在西方帝国衰落后，罗马没落之后，高雅文化退隐至修道院中，那些本笃会修道院——而他正是本笃会修士，源自蒙特卡西诺的圣本笃一脉，贯穿始终。

Well, remember after the sort of decline of the Western Empire, after the decline of Rome and so on, the cultures, well, the high culture retreats into the monasteries, and those monasteries are Benedictine, and he of course is a Benedictine, so from Monte Cassino, Saint Benedictine, so on, all the way through.

因此，修道院成为保存学术的场所。

So, the monasteries are places in which we're learning has been preserved.

约公元1000年后，西欧开始重建。

After about a thousand, Western Europe is being rebuilt.

通过教会等渠道的民政体系正在重建。

Civil administration through the church and so on is being rebuilt.

附属修道院的学校——这些本笃会修道院附属的学校变得极其重要，因为知识将重新流入文化等领域。

The monastery schools attached, so the schools attached to these Benedictine monasteries become extremely important because knowledge is gonna flow back out into culture and so on.

它们享有崇高声望。

They're high prestige.

它们被视为学术重镇等等。

They're seen to be places of great learning and so on.

安瑟伦确实是中世纪盛期的第一位伟大人物，因为他发展出一种高度系统化、非常精确、极具辩证性的推理和论证技巧。

Anselm was really the first great figure of the high Middle Ages because he develops a technique, as it were, of reasoning and argument that is highly systematic, very precise, highly dialectical and so on.

他是个强有力的人物，但几乎就像是那些被长期积累和反思的知识突然被释放到更广泛的文化中。

He's a powerful figure, but it's almost as if there's re released into the wider culture those centuries of learning that have simply been sat upon or reflected upon and so on.

我认为这些思想被迅速接纳，当然正如彼得提到的，他晋升至坎特伯雷大主教等教会权力职位。

And I think that it's taken up very quickly, and of course, as Peter mentions, he ascends to a position of some ecclesial power in being archbishop of Canterbury and so on.

这个职位本身具有威望，但我认为他被视为重建公共讨论的重要人物，这些讨论围绕学习、知识和神学等问题展开。

There's prestige with the office, but I think he's seen as being a very important figure for the reestablishment, as it were, of public discourse around questions of learning and and knowledge and theology.

你刚才说到修道院在进行思考工作。

And what you said is the monasteries are doing the thinking.

正是如此。

Exactly.

他们确实在进行思考工作。

They're doing the thinking.

是的。

Yeah.

这确实是在大学发展之前。

This is really before the development of the universities.

对。

Yes.

所以他的想法会很受欢迎，算了。

And so his idea would play play well, never mind.

我会继续的。

I'll get on with it.

他的想法可以说会非常容易被知识分子或那些阅读或聆听他的人接受。

His idea would play very easily, as it were, to the intellectuals or who would be reading him or listening to him.

没错。

Yes.

不过，我们后面可能会提到，他立即遭到了一位同僚的批评，这个人叫贾尼洛，他对安瑟姆的论点做出了回应。

Though, as we'll probably come to, he's immediately criticized by one of his confreres, somebody called Giannillo, who responds to Anselm's argument.

所以他并非一帆风顺。

So it's not as if he gets an easy run at this.

不。

No.

我是说，有人回应道，看吧，这个，这不可能是对的。

I mean, somebody comes back and says, look, this well, this can't be right.

如果你愿意的话，我们或许可以讨论这个，但

We can talk about that perhaps if you like to, but

克莱尔·卡莱尔，好吧，我们现在就要讨论它了。

Clare Carlisle well, we're gonna talk about it now.

但如果你不介意的话，我要切换到克莱尔·卡莱尔了。

But I'm gonna switch to Clairec Arlal, if you don't mind.

安瑟伦最早且立即的批评者之一是本笃会修士关尼洛。

One of Ansel's first and immediate critics was another Benedictine monk, Guanillo.

然后我们就被引向了那个方向。

And what did he we've been led in that direction.

他有什么反对意见？

What were his objections?

安瑟伦论证的一个巧妙之处在于，他从一个‘无法想象更伟大存在’的上帝概念出发，他认为即使是否认上帝存在的人也必须认同这个概念。

Well, one of the clever things about Anselm's argument is that he begins with a concept of God that than which nothing greater can be thought, which he thinks that even a person who denies God's existence has to assent to.

因此，即便你说上帝不存在，为了否认其存在，你首先必须拥有上帝的概念。

So even if you say that God doesn't exist, in order to say that, you have to have a concept of God in order to deny that he exists.

所以，安瑟伦首先谈论了那些心中说‘没有上帝’的愚人。

So, Alsalm begins by talking about the fool who in his heart says there is no God.

这是出自《诗篇》的典故，对吧？

That's in the Psalms, isn't it?

没错，正是如此。

That's right, yes.

于是，吉安内洛写了一篇反驳安瑟伦的文章，题为《为愚人辩护》。

And so, Giannello wrote a reply to Anselm entitled On Behalf of the Fool.

这实际上是对否认上帝存在的愚人的一种辩护。

So it's a kind of defence of the fool who denies the existence of God.

我想，加内洛在这里扮演了魔鬼代言人的角色，因为他虽然肯定同意安瑟伦的结论，但想质疑安瑟伦论证的逻辑。

And I guess, Ganello is playing devil's advocate here, because I'm sure he would have agreed with Anselm's conclusion, but he wanted to question the logic of Anselm's argument.

因此，安瑟伦提出的一个观点是：上帝是无法被构想出更伟大之存在的存在。

So, one move that Anselm has made is to say that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

事物可以仅存在于心灵中，例如独角兽这样的东西只存在于想象中；或者事物可以同时存在于心灵和现实中。

Things can either exist in the mind only, for example, something like a unicorn is something that only exists in the mind, or things can exist both in the mind and in reality.

所以我可以对约翰有个概念。

So I can have an idea of John.

约翰今天也在场，这事我记着呢。

It's in my mind, John's also here today.

安瑟伦的基本观点是：既存在于思想中又存在于现实中，比仅存在于思想中更伟大。

And Anselm's basic point is that it's greater to exist both in the mind and also in reality than to exist just in the mind.

因此，如果上帝是无法想象更伟大的存在，祂就不能仅存在于思想中，因为还有更伟大的存在——既存在于思想又存在于现实。

And so if God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, He can't exist only in the mind, because there's something greater than that, which is existing in the mind and in reality.

这就是他的基本论点。

So that's really his basic argument.

加尼洛对这种推理提出了质疑。

And Garnillo takes issue with this reasoning.

首先，他攻击了安瑟伦论证的前提，即上帝这一概念存在于理解之中。

So first of all, he attacks the premise of Anselm's argument, which is that this concept of God exists in the understanding.

加尼拉表示，仅仅因为我听到‘无法想象更伟大之存在’这句话，并不意味着我真正理解这个概念。

And Ganilla says, well, just because I hear the words, that than which nothing greater can be thought, that doesn't mean that I actually have that concept.

只是听到那些话与真正在脑海中形成这个概念是有区别的。

There's a difference between just sort of hearing that, hearing those words and really having the idea in my mind.

这是他提出的一个批评。

So that's one criticism he has.

他还说，事实上，上帝的现实性根本无法被构想，它超越了人类思想和理解。

He also says that, in fact, God's reality cannot be conceived at all, that God's reality is something that's beyond human thought, beyond human understanding.

他进一步指出，上帝的概念可能存在于他的理解中，但那可能只是个错误观念，就像独角兽之类的虚构概念一样。

And he also says that it's possible that the idea of God could be in his understanding, but it's just a false idea, like any kind of idea, like the idea of a unicorn or something like that.

我们脑海中存在各种观念，它们可能是错误的，上帝的观念或许也是如此。

We have all sorts of ideas in our mind, they might be false, and the idea of God might be something like that.

但实际上，我认为加尼洛最具分量的反对意见，也是最巧妙的反对意见，是他对安瑟伦论证提出的一个反例。

But actually, I think Ganilo's most significant objection, the most ingenious objection, is a counterexample that he offers to Anselm's argument.

他说，那么完美岛屿的概念呢？那个最卓越的岛屿？

And he says, well, what about the idea of a perfect island, the most excellent island?

你知道，我心中有个岛屿的概念，它比我所能想象的任何其他岛屿都要完美。

You know, I've got this idea of an island, it's better than any other island that I can conceive.

如果它只存在于我的脑海中，那么现实中必定存在一个更伟大的岛屿。

If this existed only in my mind, there'd be a greater island which also existed in reality.

所以按照你的逻辑，安瑟伦，我就能证明这个完美岛屿的存在，能证明各种完美事物、最卓越事物的存在。

So according to your reasoning, Anselm, you know, I could prove the existence of this perfect island, I could prove the existence of all sorts of perfect things, most excellent things.

这确实是对安瑟伦论证逻辑相当犀利的批评。

And that really is quite a sort of striking criticism to the logic of Anselm's argument.

但安瑟伦随后撰文回应加尼洛，在回应完美岛屿这个反例时，我认为他真正揭示了本体论论证中最关键的部分。

But Anselm then wrote a response to Garnillo and in responding to Garnillo's counterexample of the perfect island, I think he really brings to light what is most important in the ontological argument.

也就是说，安瑟伦的论证真正表达的是上帝的唯一性，以及上帝与其他任何事物都截然不同这一事实。

And that is to say that what Anselm's argument really expresses is the uniqueness of God and the fact that God is something completely different from anything else.

因为安瑟尔谟甚至不屑一顾，他只是驳斥这个反例太过荒谬，他说：不，唯有上帝才是本体论论证适用的存在。

Because Anselm doesn't even bother to he just sort of rejects this counterexample as something quite absurd because he says, Well no, God is the only being that the ontological argument can apply to.

唯有上帝是'无法想象更伟大者'的存在，这是唯一能以这种方式被定义其存在的概念。

Only God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and that's the only concept that really we can define into existence in that sort of way.

安瑟尔谟很可能坚持要求，当文献再次公开刊行时——不是重印而是重新出版——他的论证与对方的论证都应被收录。

And Anselm probably insists that when the thing is public public printed again, not printed again, published again, that his argument and the other are both included.

托马斯·阿奎那曾全力驳斥过这个观点。

Thomas Aquinas brought his guns against it.

你能简单告诉我们他当时说了什么，以及为什么这个观点让这场争论停滞了几个世纪吗？

Can you briefly tell us how briefly what he said and how that sort of stopped the argument for a few centuries?

是的。

Yes.

阿奎那对安瑟伦的论证——或者说对本体论论证——提出了两点反驳。

Well, Aquinas has two objections to Ansem's argument or or rather to the ontological argument.

我不确定他是否直接与安瑟伦交锋过。

I'm not sure whether he was engaging with Anselm directly.

首先，他质疑安瑟伦的假设，即其对上帝的定义是普遍接受的。

First of all, he questions Anselm's assumption that his definition of God is something that's universally accepted.

阿奎那说，不，我们并非都认同上帝的概念，我们并不共享这一观念。

Aquinas says, no, we don't all agree on a concept of God, we don't all share this concept'.

这是他的第一个论点。

So that's his first point.

但他接着提出一个或许更重要的观点：‘好吧，假设我们确实接受这个上帝的概念’。

But then he says, perhaps more significantly, 'Okay, let's say that we do accept this concept of God'.

这并不能告诉我们上帝真实存在。

It doesn't tell us that God exists in reality.

它只是告诉我们，当我们思考上帝时，必须认为他是存在的。

All it tells us is that when we think of God, we have to think of him as existing.

所以这个论证告诉我们的是关于我们该如何思考上帝。

So it tells argument tells us something about what we must think and how we must think of God.

但这种从思维领域滑向实际存在领域的过渡是不合理的，它并不能证明上帝的真实存在。

But this slide from the realm of thought to the realm of actual existence is illegitimate, and it doesn't tell us about God's actual existence.

正如我所说，彼得·米利肯，阿奎那似乎凭借其作为思想家的权威压制了拉的观点。

Peter Milliken, that as I say, Aquinas sort of seems to have suppressed the argument of Ra because of his power, as a thinker.

笛卡尔提出了自己的版本，你们在节目一开始就提到了这个版本。

Descartes came up with his own version, which you actually alluded to at the very beginning of the program.

那个版本是什么？为什么他选择这个版本而非安瑟伦的版本？

What was that version, and why did he have that version instead of Anselm's version?

因为你说得很清楚。

Because you make it quite clear.

你认为他的版本比安瑟伦的更粗糙、更薄弱。

You think his version is cruder and weaker than that of Anselm.

嗯，我认为它更粗糙且不够精妙。

Well, I think it's cruder and less subtle.

我认为安瑟伦的版本具有足够的逻辑复杂性，可以通过更巧妙的方式进行辩护。

I think Anselm's has sufficient logical complexity that you can tease out a lot a lot more clever ways of trying to defend it.

而笛卡尔想要的论证方式，是通过直接、清晰且明确的感知就能理解的。

Whereas Descartes wanted an argument which one could simply see by an immediate, clear, and distinct perception.

在他的哲学体系中，我是说，众所周知，他从怀疑论出发。

It within his philosophical system, I mean, famously, he starts from scepticism.

为了反驳怀疑论，他提出了著名的'我思故我在'作为确定无疑的命题。

And to refute scepticism, he comes out with this famous I think, therefore, I am as something certain.

但要

But to get

超越这一点，他以此为立足点。

beyond he stands on that.

这就是他的立场所在。

That's where he stands.

没错。

That's right.

由于他清晰明确地感知到自身的存在，于是得出结论：任何他同样清晰明确感知到的事物必然为真。

And and because he clearly and distinctly perceives his own existence, he then concludes that anything that he comparably clearly and distinctly perceives must be true.

为了从自身思维通向外部世界，他需要证明对上帝的信仰——因为如果他是被完美的上帝创造的，那么他的认知能力最终是可以信赖的，诸如此类。

And to get beyond his own thought to the external world, he wants to vindicate belief in god because if he's been created by a perfect god, then his faculties can ultimately be relied on and so on.

因此本体论论证完美契合笛卡尔的体系，作为一个可以通过清晰明确的认知来理解的极简论证。

So the ontological argument fits into Descartes' system as a very simple argument that can be perceived, as it were, by a clear and distinct perception.

根据定义，上帝是最完美的存在，即完美的存在者。

God is that which is most perfect, by definition, the perfect being.

笛卡尔清晰明确地认识到存在是一种完美属性，因此上帝必然存在。

Descartes sees clearly and distinctly that existence is a perfection, and therefore, God must exist.

我现在可以请约翰·霍尔德发言吗？

Can I go to John Holder now?

笛卡尔被誉为第一位现代哲学家。

Descartes has been called the first modern philosopher.

他是如何——可以说——扭转了论证方向，使得现代世界持续追寻这个思路？

How did he, as it were, turn the argument so the modern world continued to pursue it?

呃，我可以开始发言了吗？

Well, can I just start?

我的意思是，我想接着彼得刚才的发言继续。

I mean, I pick up from where Peter's speaking.

听着，我认为关键在于，安瑟伦的论证中，其前提之一是关于某物存在的断言，即那个无法想象更伟大之物存在于心中的观念。

Look, I think one thing is this, that in Anselm's argument, among the premises is a claim about something existing, namely the idea of that in which nothing greater can be conceived existing in the mind.

明白吗？

Alright?

所以，那是我们的出发点，然后是关于观念，但还有某种更伟大的存在是在心之外的，诸如此类。

So, that's where we start from, and then the ideas, but there's some greater existence which is outside of the mind and so on.

笛卡尔的论证并非始于关于任何事物存在的断言。

Descartes' argument doesn't start from a claim about anything existing.

它仅仅始于对上帝观念的定义。

It simply starts from definition to the idea of God.

但在我看来，笛卡尔的问题在于他将存在偷偷塞入了上帝的定义中。

But what it seems to me is problematic about Descartes is that he slips existence into the definition of God.

现在，并不清楚安瑟伦是否真的这么做了。

Now, it's not clear that Anselm actually does that.

我们或许可以辩论这一点，但他（笛卡尔）确实这么做了。

We can perhaps debate this, but he certainly does.

要理解笛卡尔论证中的力量与谬误（如果我可以这样表述的话），可以这样看。

And a way of seeing both the power and the fallacy, if I can put it this way in Descartes, is this.

这就好比说类似这样的话。

It would be like saying something like this.

看，想想猫这个概念。

Look, think about the concept of a cat.

对吧？

Right?

猫的概念是一个关于生物的概念。

The concept of a cat is a concept of a living thing.

这很合理。

Fair enough.

既然活着的东西就是有生命的，但不存在就无法拥有生命。

Well, something that's living is something that's alive, but you can't be alive unless you exist.

所以猫这个概念就保证了猫的存在。

So the concept of cat guarantees the existence of cats.

现在，你可能会说，等一下。

Now, you'd say, well, hang on a second.

这不可能是对的，对吧？

That can't be right, can it?

当然，猫的概念包含了猫是一种生物的观点，但事实上是否存在猫则是一个开放性问题。

Of course, the concept of a cat includes the idea that a cat is a kind of living thing, but it's an open question whether or not there are, in fact, any cats.

所以他实际上是从'生物作为猫概念定义的一部分'滑向了'因此存在这些生物猫'，这显然是一个谬误。

So he slid, as it were, from living thing as being part of the definition of the idea of a cat to therefore there are these living things cats, and that's just obviously a fallacy.

现在说到笛卡尔，他当然是一位杰出的哲学家，所以他的理论不会像那样粗浅地呈现，但请记住，他属于一个痴迷于仅凭理性就能确定现实基本事实的时代。

Now, the thing with Descartes is but Descartes is, of course, he's a brilliant philosopher, so it doesn't it doesn't emerge quite as as crudely as that, but what he does remember, he belongs to an age that is obsessed with the thought that by reason alone, we can determine some fundamental facts about reality.

要知道，这种观点当然会被英国经验主义哲学家们推翻和否定，他们会认为通向现实知识的唯一可靠途径是经验，但这里我们讨论的是理性主义者，大陆理性主义者，稍后我们还会听到莱布尼茨和斯宾诺莎等人的观点。

You know, this is going to be, of course, swept away and rejected by the British empiricist philosophers who are going to say that the only reliable route to knowledge about reality is experience, but here we're dealing with the rationalists, the continental rationalists, and we'll hear also later about perhaps Leibniz and Spinoza and so on.

但笛卡尔所做的——我是说，这既大胆又卓越。

But what Descartes does is Descartes I mean, and it's bold and brilliant.

笛卡尔认为我们可以观察——如果我闭上眼睛，运用思考的力量，我就能向你揭示比房间里偶然存在的事物更为深刻的现实底层结构。这个想法如此强大、有力且激动人心，而他以如此才华横溢的方式实现了它，以至于在很长一段时间里，所有人都被笛卡尔震撼，认为他证明了自我的存在，证明了上帝的存在等等。

Descartes thinks we can look, if I just close my eyes and bring to bear the power of thought, I can disclose to you something far more profound than just what happens as it were to be in the room, the underlying structure of reality, And that is such a powerful and potent and exciting thought, and he does it with such flair and brilliance that there's a long period in which everybody is stunned by Descartes, and they think he's proven the existence of the self, he's proven the existence of God, and so on.

要知道，这里需要指出的是，笛卡尔确实直面了所谓的模仿反驳，正如约翰所暗示的那样，这种观点认为你可以直接说，就拿一个存在的独角兽这个概念来说。

You know, one point to make here is that Descartes does face up to the the so called parody objection, which John has alluded to, the idea that you can just say, well, take the idea of a a unicorn, an existing unicorn.

这个概念本身就包含了存在的观念。

Well, that contains the idea of existence.

因此，必然存在独角兽。

Therefore, there must be a unicorn.

而我们并不认为这是一个好的论证。

And we don't think of that as a good argument.

笛卡尔想将上帝的观念与三角形的观念进行比较。

And Descartes wants to compare the idea of god with the idea of a triangle.

以等边三角形这个概念为例。

So take the idea of an equilateral triangle.

你实际上可以证明关于它的一些性质。

You can actually prove things about it.

这表明这个观念具有某种实在性。

That shows that this idea has some reality to it.

这不仅仅是一个凭空想象的概念。

It's not just a dreamed up concept.

他还想以同样的方式说明，上帝的概念具有某种自然的统一性。

And he wants to say in the same way that the idea of god has a sort of natural unity to it.

它不仅仅是一个被强行塞入存在属性的随意概念。

It isn't just an arbitrary idea that has existence pushed in there.

克莱尔，约翰·霍尔登提到了斯宾诺莎。

Clare, John Holden referred to Spinoza.

你能告诉我们他是如何的吗？因为这个论点被笛卡尔采纳，虽然与安瑟伦没有直接联系，但它确实是一个论点，并且从那时起一直持续至今。

Could you tell us how he because this argument is picked up by Descartes, although not directly connected with Anselm, but it is the argument and it keeps going on very steadily up to the present day from then on.

你能告诉我们斯宾诺莎带来了什么影响吗？

Can you tell us what Spinoza brought to bear?

是的，没错。

Yes, that's right.

我是说，我认为斯宾诺莎是否拥有本体论论证可能是有争议的，这是因为他倾向于扭曲或反转传统的宗教和哲学观念。

I mean, I think it's probably debatable whether Spinoza has an ontological argument, and that's because he tends to twist or invert traditional, both religious and philosophical ideas.

因此在他的《伦理学》中，十七世纪末期，他提出了一种反向版本的本体论论证。

So in his ethics, towards the end of the seventeenth century, in his ethics he has a kind of reversed version of the ontological argument.

斯宾诺莎在《伦理学》开篇就提出了实体的概念。

So Spinoza begins the ethics with a concept of substance.

实体这个概念实际上代表着存在，它就是一个独立存在的概念，关键是不依赖于任何其他事物。

And substance is something, really signifies existence, it's just a concept of existing and crucially existing independently, so not being dependent on anything else.

因此实体是最基本的存在概念。

So substance is really the most basic concept of existence.

接着斯宾诺莎继续说到，许多传统的神圣谓词都适用于这种实体或存在的概念。

And then Spinoza goes on to say that many of the traditional divine predicates apply to this concept of substance or existence.

因此实体是永恒的、无限的、全能的、全知的，因为它自身包含所有的思想和理解。

So substance is eternal, infinite, all powerful, all knowing because it contains all thought and all understanding within itself.

它是自因的，也是一切其他事物的原因。

It's self causing and the cause of all other things.

所以斯宾诺莎不是从上帝的概念出发并声称其必然存在，而是从存在的概念——某种特定的存在概念出发，然后说：'好吧，这必然就是上帝'。

So instead of starting with the concept of God and saying that it must exist, Spinoza rather starts with a concept of existence, a certain concept of existence, and says that, well, this must be God'.

因此在斯宾诺莎的理论中，我们依然可以看到存在概念与必然存在之间的关联，以及随之而来的神圣属性。

So we still have in Spinoza the linking together of a concept of existence and necessary existence, and then the divine attributes.

正如我所说，这是对本体论论证的一种巧妙反转。

So as I say, it's a kind of reversal, quite an ingenious reversal of the ontological argument.

提到约翰·霍尔顿，你提到了德国思想家莱布尼茨，他强化了这一论证或继承了笛卡尔的观点。

Mentioned John Holden, you mentioned the German thinker Leibniz, who reinforced the argument or took the argument of Descartes on.

你能为我们继续阐述吗？

Can you take it on for us?

好的。

Yes.

莱布尼茨说，看，这是个非常有趣的论证。

Leibniz says, look, this is a very interesting argument.

这就是笛卡尔的论证。

This is the Descartes argument.

顺便说一句，笛卡尔并未承认安瑟伦是其论证的来源。

By the way, Descartes doesn't acknowledge Anselm as being the source of his argument.

然而，莱布尼茨确实将笛卡尔的论点描述为源自安瑟伦。

Leibniz, however, does characterize Descartes' argument as having its origins in Anselm.

所以，要么笛卡尔不够坦诚，谁知道呢？

So, or not Descartes was being disingenuous, who knows?

但无论如何，莱布尼茨说，这个论点相当不错，但它遗漏了一些东西。

But, anyway, Leibniz says, look, this argument is pretty good, but it it omits something.

它没有考虑到一种可能性，即实际上上帝的概念可能是自相矛盾的，或者内部包含某些矛盾。

There's something it hasn't considered, and that is the possibility that, in fact, the idea of God is incoherent or has some contradiction contained within it.

明白吗？

Okay?

因此，笛卡尔真正需要做的首先是证明上帝的概念不包含矛盾，这个概念包括完美存在等等，然后我们才能继续。

So, what Descartes really needed to do, first of all, was to show that the idea of God contains no contradiction, and it includes this idea of perfect existence and so on, and then we're off.

但你首先必须证明上帝的概念中没有矛盾。

But you first of all have to show there is no contradiction in the idea of God.

你看，否则我可能会提出一个论点，比如关于方形的圆之类的东西，有人可能会说，这个论点不可能成立，因为不可能有方形的圆。

See, otherwise, it might be I might run an argument about, say, you know, square circles or something of that sort, and somebody might say, well, this argument can't possibly work because there couldn't be square circles.

本质上不可能存在既是四边形又是圆形的事物。

There couldn't be something that was both four sided and round, basically.

因此莱布尼茨说，我们首先必须确保上帝的概念中不存在任何可能的矛盾来源，一旦排除了这点，我们就能看到上帝的概念——一个无矛盾的上帝概念——包含存在性，这样论证就成立了。

So what Leibniz says is we have to make sure, first of all, that there is no possible source of contradiction in the idea of God, and once we've eliminated that, we see that the idea of God, a non contradictory concept of God, includes existence, and then we're off, and that's the argument.

所以他这样说：要证明上帝概念中不存在矛盾，我们只需证明归因于上帝的各种谓词或属性之间不存在相互排斥的特性。

So what he says is this, and he says, look, to show that there's no contradiction in God, we just have to show that the various predicates or attributes or characteristics that are ascribed to God, none of them is incompatible with any other one.

由于这些属性是原始的、基本的、简单的，它们之间不可能存在矛盾。

And since they're primitive, they're brute, they're simple, they they couldn't be.

它们并非具有某种复杂结构的事物，我们无法从中找出任何内在矛盾

They're not they're not things that have a sort of an elaborate structure where we could show there was some kind of internal contradiction that's simply Could

能再重复一遍吗？

rerun that?

好的

Alright.

举个例子，假设有人在思考某类事物是否可能存在，要说服他们不值得投入资金去搜寻发现这类事物，方法之一就是证明这类事物根本不可能存在

So, example, supposing supposing somebody is wondering whether or not a certain kind of thing could exist or not, one way of showing them that it isn't worth investing money on a search to go and discover one would be by showing there just couldn't be anything of that sort, you know.

所以，我的意思是，如果科学家想要获得大笔资金去探索世界的遥远角落，寻找是否存在方形圆，研究委员会的人会说，看，我们不需要在这上面投资，因为从定义上我们就能看出其中存在矛盾。

So, I mean, if if, you know, scientists wanted to get vast sums of money to go and explore some far reaches of the world to discover whether or not there are square circles, somebody at the research council would say, look, we don't need to invest money in this, because straight off by definition we can see there's a contradiction in that.

因此，无论进行多少调查都不可能发现方形圆。

So no amount of investigation is going to discover a square circle.

所以莱布尼茨说的是，在我们确定是否存在这类事物之前，需要先确保上帝这个概念本身不存在矛盾。

So what Leibniz is saying is before we can work out whether or not there could be a thing of this sort, we need to make sure there's no contradiction involved in the idea of God.

后来有些著名哲学家恰恰想以上帝这个概念本身存在内在矛盾为由，来反驳上帝的存在。

Now, later philosophers famously wanted to argue against the existence of God precisely on the grounds that there is internal contradiction in the very idea of God.

举例来说，假设有人说，上帝是一个行动者。

So, illustrate, supposing somebody says, God is an agent.

上帝确实行动，实际上上帝在宇宙各处行动，但上帝也是一个非物质的存在。

God acts, indeed God acts everywhere in the universe, but God is also an immaterial being.

有些人认为这其中存在矛盾。

Some people thought it's a contradiction in that.

为了能够行动，你必须——比方说——具有物理上的存在。

In order to be able to act, you have to be, let us say, physically present.

如果你是无形体的，就没有物理身体，无法在物理上存在。

If you're immaterial, you have no physical body, you can't be physically present.

因此，他们会论证说，无形体的能动者这一概念本身就存在矛盾。

So, they're going to argue there's a very as a contradiction in the idea of an immaterial agent as a contradiction.

所以莱布尼茨说，让我们看看传统上赋予上帝的属性：全能、全善、全知等等。

So, what Leibniz says is, let's look at the attributes that are traditionally assigned to God, that he's all powerful, that he's all good, that he's all knowing, so on and such like.

如果我们逐一审视这些属性，会发现它们彼此之间并不存在任何矛盾。

If we look at each of those, none of them implies any contradiction with any other one.

因此，上帝的概念是一个连贯的概念，而且它包含了存在的概念。

So, the idea of God is a coherent idea, and moreover, it includes the idea of existence.

笛卡尔提醒过我们这一点，于是我们开始了。

Descartes reminded us of that, and so we're off.

所以，莱布尼茨所做的实际上是在排除一个可能的反对意见——从上帝的概念到上帝的存在，这个反对意见会说上帝的概念本身就是不连贯或矛盾的。

So, all that Leibniz is doing is really clearing away a possible objection from the idea of God to the existence of God, an objection that would say the very idea of God is an incoherent or contradictory one.

不。

No.

并非如此。

It isn't.

于是论证继续推进。

So off the argument goes.

据我所知，在十八世纪，大卫·休谟对这一整套理论发起了极其猛烈的抨击。

Peter Millikan, as I understand in the eighteenth century, David Hume comes in extremely powerfully against the whole thing.

听众们或许会松一口气，因为米利肯的观点终于登场了。

Millikan, A point of view that perhaps our listeners will be the relieved to hear arrives on the scene.

这并未摧毁该论证。

It doesn't destroy the argument.

它又持续了大约两百年。

It goes on for another two hundred years or so.

至今仍在继续。

Still going on.

但他对本体论论证提出了强有力的反驳，他从根基入手，埋下炸药，引爆装置——至少在他看来已将其彻底粉碎。

But he makes a powerful case against the ontological argument, and he he starts underneath, blazes dynamite, plunges it in, and blows it up as far as he's as far as he is concerned.