珍妮特·拉德克利夫·理查兹谈什么是哲学

这是《哲学 bites》，我是大卫·埃德蒙兹。

This is Philosophy Bites with me, David Edmunds.

我是奈杰尔·沃伯顿。

And me, Nigel Warburton.

《哲学 bites》可在 www.philosophybites.com 上收听。

Philosophy Bites is available at www.philosophybites.com.

我们本该在十九年前刚启动哲学节目时就问这个问题，但迟做总比不做好。

We probably should have asked this question nineteen years ago when we first started Philosophy but better late than never.

什么是哲学？

What is philosophy?

这个问题是问简·拉德克利夫·理查兹的，她著有《怀疑的女权主义者》和《达尔文之后的人性》等书。

A question for Janet Radcliffe Richards, author of, among other books, The Skeptical Feminist and Human Nature After Darwin.

简·拉德克利夫·理查兹，欢迎来到《哲学 bites》。

Janet Radcliffe Richards, Welcome to Philosophy Bites.

很高兴能来到这里。

Very pleased to be here.

我们今天要探讨的主题是：什么是哲学？

The topic we're gonna focus on is what is philosophy?

所以我的第一个问题就是：究竟什么是哲学？

So my first question is that, really.

什么是哲学？

What is philosophy?

试图给出一个概括性的答案是荒谬的，因为每个人都有不同的看法。

Well, it's silly to try and give a general answer because everybody has different ideas.

但我觉得真正相关的是你从哪里开始做哲学。

But I think what is probably relevant is where you begin doing philosophy.

我发现哲学并不始于那些宏大或神秘的东西。

And I find it's not at all with philosophy as grand or mysterious.

我常建议，当你和孩子交谈时，问他们如何知道某人在撒谎，他们可能会说，那个人说了一些他们自己知道是真实的事情。

One thing I do is suggest that if you're talking to children and you ask them how they know somebody is lying, one of the things they can do is say that the person has told something which they personally know is true.

但他们也可以注意到，那个人自相矛盾了。

But the other thing they can do is notice that the person has contradicted themself.

这两种是完全不同的认知方式。

And these are two completely different ways of knowing something.

一种依赖于你拥有相关信息，另一种则完全不依赖于你是否拥有它。

One depends on your having the information, the other doesn't depend on your having it at all.

你只是知道，他们所说的话不可能是真的，因为他们说了相互矛盾的内容。

You just know that what they've said can't be true because they've said things that contradict each other.

我认为这是一种非常不错的思考哲学的方式。

And I think that's a very good way of thinking about philosophy.

这是一种可以应用于各种主题的探究方式。

It's a kind of inquiry you take to all kinds of subjects.

我一位同事曾这样形容：科学是让你的想法与世界相符，而哲学是让你的想法彼此一致。

And one way a colleague of mine put it was science is about getting your ideas to match the world, and philosophy is about getting your ideas to match each other.

它们是两种完全不同的东西。

And they're two completely different kinds of thing.

当你研究同一主题、讨论同一问题时，这两种情况常常会同时出现，但认识到你可以提出的不同类型的批评，对于任何讨论都至关重要。

They often occur when you're doing the same subject, when you're discussing the same thing, but recognizing the different kinds of criticism you can make is absolutely crucial to any kind of discussion.

这是最基础层面的东西。

And this is real ground level stuff.

这与形而上学或生命的终极目的毫无关系。

It's nothing to do with metaphysics or the ultimate purpose of life.

这只是最基本的东西，但你做任何事都需要它。

It's just basic, and you need it for everything.

这真的很有趣，因为有些人认为哲学是关于追求真理，发现关于现实本质的真相，而理性是我们实现这一目标的手段。

That's really interesting because some people think philosophy is about the pursuit of truth, discovering what the truth about the nature of reality is, and reason is the means by which we do that.

这并不是你的意思。

That's not what you're saying.

嗯，确实是。

Well, is.

但另一方面，要掌握推理，你需要从相当基础的层面开始，否则你可能会认为这种能力只在高层次才有可能实现。

But on the other hand, to get the hang of reasoning, you need to start at fairly basic levels because otherwise you may think that this kind thing is only possible at these high levels.

我觉得有趣的是，这种思维方式能深入到事物的最底层。

What I think is interesting is how this penetrates right to the bottom of things.

例如，当你探讨伦理问题时，很多人认为我必须找出伦理的真相，因此我们直接开始做元伦理。

For instance, if you're asking ethics questions, a lot of people think, well, I've got to find out the truth about ethics and therefore we start doing meta ethics.

但在这一点上，你很难达成任何共识。

And you can't get any agreement there.

你甚至常常无法就是否存在可认知的东西达成一致。

You can't always get any agreement about whether there's anything to be known.

但如果你从人们在伦理上真正关心的问题入手——那些日常生活中他们产生分歧的方面——你经常会发现，他们甚至没有审视过自己论证的逻辑，而是根据自己的标准得出了错误的结论，却并未意识到这一点，依然坚信自己所信的两件事都是对的，尽管它们实际上根本矛盾。

But if you often start about the kind of things that people are really concerned with in ethics, the day to day things where they have disagreements, you very often find that they haven't even looked at the logic logic of the argument and they're coming to wrong conclusions by their own standards but they don't realize it and they remain convinced that the two things they believe are both true and they're really incompatible.

尽管从这个角度入手并不那么令人兴奋，但它实际上比在高空盘旋却永远无法达成共识更有可能带你找到答案。

And although that isn't a very exciting place to start, it's actually more likely to get you somewhere than going around in the stratosphere and never coming to an agreement.

你能举一个这种不一致性的真实例子吗？

Could you give a real example of that kind of inconsistency?

最简单的例子，我觉得我以前在《哲学小口》里聊过。

Well, the simplest is one I I have a feeling I've talked about in Philosophy Bites before.

这是三十多年前让我印象深刻的一件事，从那以后我始终无法摆脱这个话题。

It's something that struck me over thirty years ago now, and I've never been allowed to drop the subject.

当时我正在从事新闻工作，恰逢第一起关于贩卖器官的丑闻爆发。

I was experimenting with journalism at the time when the first scandal arose about selling organs.

人们发现土耳其总统来到英国，在哈雷街出售他们的器官，准确地说是肾脏。

And it was discovered Turkish presidents had come to Britain to sell their organs in their kidneys, I should say, in Harley Street.

当这一事件首次曝光时，引发了强烈的抗议。

And when this first erupted, there was an out cry.

涉事人员中，有一人被吊销了行医执照，另外两人被送去接受伦理培训。

The people involved, one of them was struck off the medical register, the two others were sent for ethical training.

事件一出，全世界立刻纷纷表示：这绝对错了。

And immediately, the whole world started saying, this is absolutely wrong.

必须予以禁止。

It should be prohibited.

我们很快便通过了相关禁令。

And we got a prohibition through in no time at all.

当我听到这件事时，立刻感到非常蹊跷。

Now it struck me immediately when I heard this.

每个人都说，我们做了多么可怕的事，富人剥削穷人，诸如此类。

Everybody said what terrible things we've been doing, the rich exploiting the poor and all the rest of it.

让我立刻感到震惊的是，这里有一个人正被从死亡或透析这种几乎等同于死亡、甚至更糟的生活状态中拯救出来。

And what struck me immediately about the thing was, well, here is one person being saved either from death or a life on dialysis which is as near as makes no difference to death, probably worse.

而另一方面，有个人试图出售自己的器官，事实上，是为了救他的女儿。

And on the other hand, somebody who was trying to sell his organ, actually, as it happened, to save his daughter.

如果他捐出肾脏来救女儿，人们会说，这太英勇了。

Now if he had been giving his kidney to save his daughter, people would have said, this is heroic.

太棒了。

It's wonderful.

他在牺牲自己。

He's sacrificing it.

他本想牺牲自己的肾脏来救女儿，人们却说，哦，太可怕了。

Here he was trying to sacrifice his kidney to save his daughter, and people said, oh, terrible.

你被剥削了。

You're being exploited.

这不行。

This won't do.

所以，这里有两个人试图进行一项对博有益的交易，但每个人都立刻说，这太荒谬了。

So here were two people trying to make an exchange which would have benefited Beau, and everybody immediately said, this is outrageous.

在我看来，这不仅令人惊讶，而且实际上与大多数人对伦理的看法不一致。

It seemed to me not only that this was surprising, but that it was actually inconsistent with most people's view of ethics.

如今，大多数医疗从业者认为，人们有权判断什么最符合自己的利益。

Most medical people take the view now that people are allowed to be the judges of their own best interest.

除非对他人有害，否则你不该阻止人们做他们认为对自己有益的事。

You shouldn't stop people doing what's that they think is good for them unless it's bad for someone else.

他们可能会说，嗯，这确实对他人有害。

Well, they would say, well, it is bad for someone else.

这是那个被剥削的捐献者。

It's this poor, exploited donor.

那个人，诚然，如果不是为了康复，他本不会捐出器官，我并不指望因此得到报酬，但他确实需要钱，而这笔钱对救他女儿至关重要。

That person, admittedly, wouldn't have been getting rid of his organ if he hadn't got well, I'm not expecting to get money for it, but he was, and the money was necessary to save his daughter.

所以有两个自由个体在做他们想做的事，但这件事却被说成是非法的。

So there are two free agents doing what they want, and yet this was said to be illegal.

当你进一步深入调查时，情况变得更加复杂，因为法律早已规定，器官可以无偿捐赠给需要的人。

And it was even more complicated when you looked further into it because it was already decided in law that an organ could be given altruistically to somebody who needed an organ.

唯一需要的只是你的同意以及关于适当治疗的规则。

All that was needed was your consent and rules about proper treatment.

为什么涉及金钱就会有任何不同呢？

Why should the involvement of money make any difference?

我感到担忧，因为有两个人因此处境变得更糟。

I was worried because there were two people being left worse off by this.

所以问题来了：你能对此进行更深入的分析吗？

So the question was, could you analyze this any further?

当人们相信的两件事表面上看似矛盾时——这与我们关于器官捐赠的法律相冲突，也与我们允许个人自主判断自身最佳利益的理念相悖——他们又怎能断言‘任何人都不应被允许出售肾脏’是一个普遍原则呢？

When people believe two things which are shown to be on the surface inconsistent, this is incompatible with our laws about donating organs, it's incompatible with our ideas about letting people be the judge of their own best interests, how could they say it was a universal universal principle that nobody should be allowed to sell their kidneys?

于是他们不断寻找借口，而这一点正是乔纳森·海特在心理学中发现的现象。

So they kept finding excuses, and this is a thing that Jonathan Haidt discovered as a matter of psychology.

如果人们坚信两件事，而你又证明它们彼此矛盾，他们就会试图寻找方法将它们调和。

If people are convinced of two things which you've shown are incompatible with each other, they will try to find ways of joining them.

这开启了一段漫长的旅程，我参加了无数会议，人们试图证明这是错误的，但他们用来证明错误的论点本身却站不住脚。

And this was the beginning of a long journey where I went to conference after conference and people were trying to prove that it was wrong, and yet the arguments which they were trying to prove it was wrong with themselves didn't work.

关键是，我们进行医学伦理讨论时，依赖少数几个被视为根本的原则，其余所有论证都围绕这些原则展开。

The point is that we do medical ethics with a few general principles which we regard as fundamental, and then all the rest of the arguments come within that.

当然，如果你愿意，你可以质疑这些根本原则，但通常我们不会这么做。

Now you could challenge the fundamental principles if you want to, but we don't generally.

人们声称，禁止买卖器官应被视为一项根本原则。

People were claiming that this no selling of organs should come at the level of a fundamental principle.

它应该被完全禁止。

It should be absolutely out.

而问题就出在这里。

And that's where the problem is.

我并不是在说你应该建立器官交易市场。

I wasn't trying to say you should have a trade in organs.

任何人都可以自由地买卖器官。

Anybody can deal in organs as much as they like.

作为一种基本准则，这是完全错误的，因为它与我们其他的 fundamental principles 相矛盾。

Was completely wrong as a fundamental principle because it was incompatible with the other things we had as fundamental principles.

所以作为一名哲学家，你并不是在陈述他们的观点。

So as a philosopher, you weren't presenting their arguments.

你是在拿他们提供的论点，指出这些论点会导致不一致。

You were taking the arguments they gave and showing that they led to inconsistencies.

你能具体说明一下不一致的问题在哪里吗？

Can you spell out what's wrong with inconsistency?

我的意思是，有些人说他们可以容纳很大的不一致，持有矛盾的信念根本不是问题。

I mean some people say they're large, can embrace inconsistencies, there's no problem in having inconsistent beliefs.

我们所有人都有相互矛盾的信念。

We all have inconsistent beliefs.

但如果我们认真对待这些信念，就会努力消除它们。

But we try to get rid of them if we're serious about them.

认真对待伦理学的一个有趣之处在于，我并不怀疑那些反对支付器官捐赠的人确实持有真诚的原则，他们真的认为这是错误的，但认真对待原则还有另一个层面，那就是愿意质疑原则本身。

This was one of the interesting things about taking ethics seriously because I don't doubt that these people who are against paying for organ donations, don't doubt that these people have genuine principles and they really feel that it's wrong, but there's a different level of taking principles seriously which is being willing to question the principles themselves.

这听起来像是无限倒退，但其实不是，因为你同时拥有两组处于同一层次的不一致原则。

Now that sounds like an infinite regress, but it isn't because you've got two sets of inconsistent principles at the same level.

如果你支持尊重个人自主权，就不能同时支持禁止任何形式的报酬，因为这两者彼此矛盾。

And if you go along with allowing autonomy to people, you can't also go along with allowing the prohibition of any payment because they're incompatible with each other.

现在你展示的不是解释为什么这是哲学的，而是揭示了这一点。

Now you've shown rather than explicated why this is philosophical.

我们正在讨论哲学的本质是什么。

We're talking about what the nature of philosophy is.

你实际上是在展示哲学在行动——通过一个具体的现实例子，揭示提出某些观点的人之间存在的矛盾。

You're showing philosophy in action as it were, taking a particular real life example, showing it led to inconsistencies among the people who are putting forward certain sorts of views.

你是在说，这就是哲学的主要活动吗？

Are you saying that's the main activity of philosophy?

不是。

No.

我想说的是，在做了大量哲学研究，并涉猎过形而上学和科学哲学之后，我不断发现许多日常生活中常见的现象：如果人们能理解论证的不同运作方式，或许就能在根本层面避免一些问题。

I suppose I'm saying after having done lots of philosophy and having dabbled in metaphysics and philosophy of science, I keep finding all these ordinary everyday things where if people had an understanding of different ways in which arguments work we might avoid some problems at the ground level.

例如，我在回顾维多利亚时代关于女性地位的争论时注意到，密尔对反对者的立场逻辑提出了非常有说服力的分析。

For instance, one of the things I've noticed in the context of going back to the Victorian arguments about the position of women, Mill put forward some very convincing arguments about the logic of his opponent's position.

有时他针对的是经验性主张，有时则是逻辑本身等等。

Sometimes they were about the empirical claims, sometimes they were about the logic and so on.

我当时想，人们怎么会不接受这些论证呢？

I And thought, how can people not go along with these arguments?

后来我研究了密尔的一些反对者，才意识到他们预设了一种完全不同的形而上学，一种对世界运作方式截然不同的看法。

And then I looked at some of his opponents, and I realized that they were presupposing a totally different metaphysics, metaphysics, a totally different view of the way the world works.

如果你接受了这种对世界运作方式的假设，那么他们的论证就站得住脚，而密尔的论证在那种框架下就无法成立。

And if you accepted that view of the way the world worked, their arguments went through, and Mill's arguments wouldn't have worked against that view.

也就是说，从逻辑的角度来看，双方都在各自的前提体系内保持了逻辑一致性，但问题在于哪种形而上学才是正确的。

That is, looking at the two from the point of view of logic, you can see that each one was working logically within its own terms, but there was the question of which of the metaphysics was true.

我认为密尔最终更胜一筹，是因为我认为现代科学已经摒弃了那种替代性的形而上学，而当时它尚未完全被抛弃。

And the reason I think Mill comes out best in that is because I think science has now got rid of the alternative metaphysics, which it hadn't quite at this time.

另一种形而上学可能是认为存在一种上帝赋予的等级制度，使男性优于女性，或者类似的观点？

The alternative metaphysics might have been that there's a God given hierarchy which makes men superior to women or something like that?

我甚至不认为那有必要，但基本上，是的。

I don't even think that was necessary, but essentially, yes.

是的。

Yes.

你到目前为止对哲学活动的描述，把逻辑放在了核心位置。

The way you've been describing philosophical activity so far puts logic at the center.

在你看来，这是哲学的核心吗？

Is that the core of philosophy in your view?

我认为这是哲学所使用的核心工具。

I think that is the core tool philosophy uses.

我的意思是，如果你进入形而上学领域，比如，我不认为是逻辑推翻了形而上学。

That is if you well, I mean, if you go into metaphysics, for instance, I don't think it's logic that's overturned metaphysics.

我认为是科学的进步。

I think it's the advance of science.

但科学也包含大量哲学内容，正如库恩所说，当科学观点的基础发生根本性变革时，哲学总是参与其中，因为这时你必须从头开始重新思考这些概念。

But then science also includes a lot of philosophy where Kuhn said, where you're getting a radical change in the fundamentals of scientific views, there's always philosophy involved, and there is, because you're having to rethink the concepts from the start.

所以我认为你必须了解形而上学，也必须了解科学是如何运作的。

So I think you have to know about metaphysics and you have to know about how science works.

但我认为，对于实践伦理学——这是我目前主要关注的领域——你首先需要拆解论点，以揭示形而上学在哪里介入。

But I think for practical ethics, which is what I'm mainly concerned with now, you have to first unpack the arguments to show where the metaphysics comes in.

然后，当两个人都坚持自己原有的观点时，你可以指出：是的，你的观点在这一套形而上学基础上可能是自洽的，我的观点在另一套形而上学基础上也可能自洽，那么究竟谁是对的？这时你就必须上升到形而上学的层面。

And then when you've got two people who want to stick to their original views, can show, yes, your views might be consistent consistent on on this this metaphysics, metaphysics, yours yours might might be be consistent consistent on this metaphysics, which of you is right, and then you have to move up to the metaphysical level.

你一直给我留下深刻印象，你的思想表达得非常优雅而清晰。

You've always struck me as a very elegant and clear writer and communicator of your ideas.

在哲学中，这种能力有多重要？

How important is that in philosophy?

我认为这极其重要。

I think it's tremendously important.

但另一方面，无论你写得多么清晰，人们仍会误解。

But on the other hand, people misunderstand however clearly you write.

你知道，我一直觉得我的观点被误解了，不只是泛泛地说‘他们不理解我’。

You know, I've always found my ideas misunderstood, not just in just saying generally, oh, they don't understand me.

关于器官买卖这件事，我还没有让很多人真正理解。

This organ selling business, I have not yet got across to a lot of people.

哲学在教育中总体上有多重要？

How important generally is philosophy in education?

我认为这极其重要，因为如果你不理解论点是如何相互关联的，你就只会拥有一堆孤立的知识片段。

I think it's hugely important because if you don't understand how arguments fit together, you just have a lot of isolated bits of knowledge.

而我们现在面临的难题就是，所有这些事情你都可以在谷歌上瞬间查到一个个独立的问题。

And that's the trouble we're having with all these things that you can look up as individual questions on Google in no time at all.

如果你从小没有学会理解这些观点是否彼此关联，那你就是在彻底放弃智力探索。

If you don't grow up with an understanding of whether they fit together, you're giving up on intellectual inquiry altogether.

任何事情都可能发生。

Anything can happen.

我的意思是，人们肯定会对政治如何运作、伦理如何运作、科学如何运作产生疑问。

I mean, must have queries about how politics works, how ethics works, how science works.

如果你只有零散的信息，那就完全失去了这种能力。

And if you just have isolated bits of information, you've lost that altogether.

我认为我们在这方面还不够。

And I don't think we have enough of it.

所以，尽管这些都是非常基础的内容，但我认为它们是所有这些讨论中所需要的。

So even though it's very basic stuff, I think it's what's needed in all these discussions.

这很枯燥。

It's very boring.

这不是高深的东西。

It's not high level.

这是前方的愿景。

Here is the vision ahead.

我们能不能先把下一步做对？

Can we just get the next step right?

珍妮特·雷利夫·理查兹，非常感谢。

Janet Regliff Richards, thank you very much.

非常感谢。

Thank you very much.

如需了解更多《哲学小品》内容，请访问 www.philosophybites.com。

For more Philosophy Bites, go to www.philosophybites.com.

您还可以在那里找到《哲学小品》书籍的详细信息以及如何支持我们。

You can also find details there of Philosophy Bites books and how to support us.