什麼才叫懂哲學？

01-26

懂哲學有什麼標準嗎？是根據哲學思想建立起自己的世界觀和方法論嗎？
———————————————————————————————
PS：回答時請不要糾結於題目語言的準確性，你所看到的、理解的就是我的問題，你的回答只需要自圓其說。

很遺憾，這個非飽和語言表達式並沒有固定的使用方式。

哲學本身的結構和別的學科並沒有什麼本質的區別，基本上也是各個領域不斷細分，然後在特定的地方交織起來。舉一個簡單的例子：我肯定沒有康德本人那麼懂康德，但是我肯定比康德更懂維特根斯坦。雖然在男神面前我也幾乎不懂維特根斯坦。

也就是說，對於具體的哲學主張和哲學問題的把握構成的整體的懂不懂是一個偏序。當然我們可以想像一個哲學上帝，它懂得一切的哲學主張，並且對於所有哲學問題有一定的洞見，那它毫無疑問是最懂哲學的存在，但是底下的東西就沒有辦法比較了。每個人進入哲學的興趣點都是不同的，有些人是從數學開始，有些人是從認識論開始，有些人是從倫理學開始，有些人是從宗教開始，有些人是從美學開始，有些人是從政治哲學開始，有些人是從邏輯學開始……哲學本身就是由這些具體的問題組成的，並沒有一個特定的什麼才算得上是哲學這樣一個標準。而如果這個標準都沒有的話，那麼懂不懂就更加成問題了。並且，還有不少人僅僅是對於某類東西感興趣，而未必是以哲學的方式對其感興趣，或許到了一定程度的了解之後他們就會轉而去採取別的進路來思考他們所感興趣的問題，而不再使用哲學的方式，但是，也正是因為他們知道他們不想用哲學的方式考察這個現象，他們才能夠談得上放棄。這種情況下顯然也包含著某種對於哲學的理解（懂哲學），才使得放棄得以可能。

雖然固定一個時間片段我們可以說目前來看什麼問題被哲學關心，而什麼問題已經被扔到了具體科學領域中了，但是即便如此，我們依然可以重新從具體科學裡面分離出來哲學問題，這些具體的問題肯定是新的，畢竟古人不可能去思考具體的物理學哲學——他們的物理學裡面都沒有這樣的概念，但是這類問題卻依然不是物理的，或者，不僅僅是物理的，同時也是哲學的。

哲學同時還受到另一個方面的侵蝕，那就是日常的濫用，絕大多數情況下人們會把一些看上去很有道理的東西稱作哲理，從而總結出某些奇奇怪怪的哲學，並且隨著語言的貶值，以及炒作的需要，越來越多的垃圾話也變得哲理和哲學了起來。一個雞湯大師在這個意義上來說也很懂哲學，至少很懂人生的哲學或者戀愛的哲學之類的東西。

當然，受到玷污的也不僅僅是「哲學」，「這很科學」和「這不科學」顯然是對於「科學」二字的玷污，在各種奇異視頻下面刷「這不科學」的跟風動物們顯然未必就懂科學了，但是或許他們也懂某種科學——「這不科學」。

希望給「懂哲學」弄一個明確的標準，說白了還是一種考證思維。但是即便是英語，在四六級之上還有各種奇奇怪怪的標準，如果真的是為了讀哲學的話，那麼這輩子你都是學生，但是如果是為了裝逼的話，又何必懂哲學呢？一讀者，一青年文摘，足以。

以上。

謝邀……

大概能夠像是哲學家一樣研究和討論哲學就算是懂哲學了吧……

當然，在有些人眼裡，或許很多哲學家都不懂哲學……

這個問題問的很開放，也很尖銳，很不好回答。

我不打算正面回答，希望至少能保持一種開放探討的可能。

我想了很久，發現哲學之於我，至少存在著這樣一些標準（遞進式，這也正是西哲史的某種思維前進方向）：

1.摹仿者—學習意識

把我發自內心反對或厭惡的觀點，用比這個觀點的提出者還清晰縝密的方式表述出來，用比他本人的思維還逼真的方式摹仿著他的思維，通過將這種思維推向極端來進行否定。在這個過程里，我既是一個「摹仿者」，也是一個學習者。所以當我攻擊一種觀點時，我其實是在認同它；當我認同一個人，我其實就是在批判它。

思維代表：柏拉圖，阿奎那，康德

2.自虐狂—辯證法

意識到1.學習意識（或進步）的本質其實是一種虛無的意識，而且哲學的唯一目的就是推翻自己，除此之外別無它用，進而從自身思想的結構裂隙當中尋求衝突的快感，從壓抑當中找到釋放，而不是就事論事、從確定性當中找到確定性。

辯證法推而廣之還可以是，體驗到如下句子的微妙「生命的價值隱含在死亡里」；「愛與恨是同一種東西」；「人性是一種神性與物性的共同體」；「灌別人雞湯的人其實自己最愛喝雞湯」；「辯證思維的本質是在自虐……」等等。

思維代表：笛卡爾，黑格爾，尼采

3.觀察者—世界觀

認識到所謂「哲學世界觀」萬變不離其宗，歸根到底只有一種，即，真實的世界只是一個假設。而這個假設到底是什麼，取決於回答這個問題的人的視角。至於世界具體是什麼樣，那是科學家或虔信徒互相爭辯的事情。

到了這時候，一個人關注的重點從具體的內容，全盤轉移到了說話者（理論）的視角上去。通過和朋友（無論志同道合與否）的交流，他能從一種辯證法的壓抑與解放衝突當中走出來（從階層、身份、性別等等結構當中走出來），時常發現一些普通人看不見的細節。他能跳出來看問題，卻又能比任何人進入得更深，他不會被哲學這個學科的邊界束縛住，但卻又是一位地地道道搞哲學的人。

思維代表：弗洛伊德，胡塞爾，海德格爾

4.魔術師—思維拓撲學

（到了4已經開始有奇葩的跡象了，性格舉止都會和親朋好友有些不同，並開始展露出日常生活的高情商，也就是所謂神棍階段）

所謂思維拓撲學，是指其思想/哲學的形態（假如我們有一種「思想模型」）呈現為拓撲幾何式的，而其思想與其哲學的關係，也是拓撲結構式的（並非「思想=哲學」），這個人的整個精神世界是扭結的，學習、思考都是摺疊遞進而非直線前進的，因此整個人的說話方式也呈現出複雜化與混雜性的傾向。

他所說出來的東西，都不再具有某種意義明確的形態，而是圓滑的、動態的和外延模糊的，是非立場的（因此他也不會輕易認同、加入或迎合某種既定的社會立場）。先有寫作才有思維，他會保持勤於寫作的習慣，但不痴迷於尋找唯一的真理或絕對真理。

最終，通過某些高超的寫作技巧或言語形式，他會讓自己的話語在某個圈子內立即生效。

思維代表：雅克·拉康，德里達，德勒茲

5.大主教—關注（當代）現實

（把5放到最後，是因為到4的時候算是哲學上道了。而細心的知乎會發現，到了4的人往往離精神錯亂也只有一線之隔，但這個人卻已具備通向5的必需條件，也即一種愛智慧的魔性）

「大主教」的所思所想就像一顆核彈，丟到人群里會引發核爆。這時候的他會游弋於社會、宗教、政治、文化各個領域當中，他的身份會變得比較複雜，並回過頭來關注、理解所謂「現實」。他真正做到了「知識就是力量」，「以知識為武器」。他將不止是一個職業的哲學家，而且更是一個活在時代潮流（後現代語境）、活在世俗社會（狂歡化）當中的思維領袖和思想恐怖分子，因此我們稱之為「大主教」。

思維代表：鮑德里亞，貝爾納·斯蒂格勒，齊澤克

下面是一篇回答&<哲學是什麼&>的簡短討論,這些討論全是現代哲學家(哲學工作者)所說的,文章摘自免費電子雜誌&

(我覺得可以翻譯成&<哲思小品&>)的2010年刊.

一半的內容附上了個人翻譯,這些翻譯是我兩年前做的,後來因為一些原因坑沒填上..

有些句子較難翻譯我直接寫的原文,如果有翻譯不對的請指出

what is philosophy?

什麼是哲學?

We asked a range of our interviewees for our Philosophy Bites

podcast the simple question 『What is Philosophy?』 They

had no warning of the question. Their answers surprised us. The

combination of perspectives was illuminating. Here they are in

alphabetical order.

在未事先被通知的情況下,我們問了一圈我們philosophy bites podcast 節目的參與者們一個簡單的問題:"什麼是哲學?"這些回答放在一起讓我們感到耳目一新,十分具有啟發性.

根據姓氏字母表序,排列如下:

Marilyn Adams:

Philosophy is thinking really hard about the most

important questions and trying to bring analytic clarity both to the

questions and the answers.

Marilyn Adams:

哲學是對那些最為重要的問題的深入思考,並試圖努力將這問題與解答都解析得非常清晰明了.

Robert Adams:

Philosophy is what philosophers do. That』s important because I don』t want to be narrow as to what constitutes philosophy. There are certain ways of doing philosophy that are sufficiently different from the way that I and a majority of English-speaking philosophers do it, that I might hesitate to say they and we are practising the same discipline. But I think it would be unduly imperialistic to say what they』re doing is not philosophy.

Robert Adams:

哲學就是哲學家所做的那些事情.這很重要,因為我不想把哲學狹義化.有很多與我們這些英語母語者完全不同人在用他們自己的方法論研究哲學,我甚至懷疑我們是否處在同一個研究範式中.然而我認為如果說他們所做的不是哲學,未免太過霸權主義.

Peter Adamson:

Wow. I guess I think philosophy is the study of the

costs and benefits that accrue when you take up a certain position. For

example, if you』re arguing about free will and you』re trying to decide

whether to be a compatibilist or incompatibilist—is free will compatible

with causal determinism?—what you』re discovering is what problems

and what benefits you get from saying that it is compatible, and what

problems and benefits you get from saying it』s incompatible.

Peter Adamson:

啊哈.我覺得哲學是不斷付出的研究與持續增長的收穫.舉個例子, 如果你正在思考自由意志的問題,並且你打算做一個決定, 到底是成為相容論者還是不相容論者, 也就是在問這樣一個問題: 自由意志和因果決定論是否相容. 你會發現, 當你說那是相容或不相容的, 你都會有所付出(思考)和收穫(回答).

John Armstrong:

Philosophy is the successful love of thinking.

John Armstrong:

哲學就是對思考最完美的愛.

Catalin Avramescu:

You』ve hit me with this question. It』s a little bit

like what Augustine famously said about the concept of time. When

nobody asks me about it, I know. But whenever somebody asks me about

what the concept of time is, I realize I don』t know.

Catalin Avramescu:

你這個問題真的是難住我了.這有點像奧古斯丁最著名的關於時間的言論: 關於時間是什麼, 當沒人問我的時候, 我一清二楚, 而當一旦有人問及, 我才意識到我對時間一無所知.

Simon Blackburn:

Well, it』s a process of ref lection on the deepest

concepts, that is structures of thought, that make up the way in which

we think about the world. So it』s concepts like reason, causation, matter,

space, time, mind, consciousness, free will, all those big abstract words

and they make up topics, and people have been thinking about them for

two and a half thousand years and I expect they』ll think about them for

another two and half thousand years if there are any of us left.

Simon Blackburn:

呃. 哲學是關於思想結構這種最深刻概念的反思, 他直接造就了我們思考世界的方式.所以他的概念, 如理性,因果關係,物質,空間,時間,心靈,意識,自由意志,所有這些概念抽象的[大詞]以及他們延伸出的話題,人類對他們的思考已經超過兩千五百年,我預測還會再想上另一個兩千五百年,只要我們還活著.

Richard Bradley:

Philosophy is 99 per cent about critical ref lection on

anything you care to be interested in.

Richard Bradley:

哲學是百分之九十九的批判性反思加一點任何你感興趣的領域.

Wendy Brown:

Philosophy asks about life』s meanings. Philosophy

asks about who we are, what we might be, how we conceive ourselves,

and how we can even think these questions.

Wendy Brown:

哲學追問生命的意義.哲學追問我們是誰,我們將去往何處,我們如何構想自己, 以及我們為何會思考這些問題.

-----------------------------------------------

Allen Buchanan: I don』t think it』s any one thing, but I think generally

it involves being critical and ref lective about things that most people take

for granted.

Allen Buchanan:

我不認為哲學是什麼具體的東西, 不過我覺得哲學大多涉及一般人習以為常的事物,並對之進行批判性反思.

John Campbell:

I don』t think there is a general answer to that

question. The thing that interests me most is what science is telling us

about our common-sense picture of the world. What I』m uneasy about is

a doublethink where on the one hand we just operate uncritically with

our common-sense picture of the world, and then we shift into scientific

mode. I think science really destabilizes our common-sense picture of the

world. Understanding just where common sense has to give in the face of

the science, where common sense is consistent with science, and where

we have some real work to do to understand how they can both be

correct—that is really what drives me.

John Campbell:

我不認為這個問題有普適答案. 科學告訴我們世界的常識圖景,這很有意思,但讓我感到不安的是,當我們一方面用不清晰的常識圖景去看世界,另一方面我們卻直接切換到科學模式.我認為我們對世界的常識圖景著實受到了科學的撼動.光是理解哪些地方常識必須讓步於科學,哪些地方常識與科學相一致,以及我們該做點什麼來理解為何兩者可以同時正確,這些都已經讓我非常著迷.

Clare Carlisle:

Most simply put it』s about making sense of all

this . . . We find ourselves in a world that we haven』t chosen. There are

all sorts of possible ways of interpreting it and finding meaning in the

world and in the lives that we live. So philosophy is about making sense

of that situation that we find ourselves in.

Clare Carlisle:

簡而言之,他的目的在於弄懂以下所有問題的回答:

我們發現自己在一個我們沒有選擇的世界中. 有無數種可能的方式解釋並找到他的存在的意義,並且能夠證明我們活著.所以哲學就是去弄懂我們的處境.

Tony Coady:

Oh, well I』m an analytic philosopher, so I』m committed

to the view that philosophy involves a lot of analytic work: a lot of

analysis of concepts. But I think some people think philosophy only

involves analysing concepts and getting clear about things. They also

think you should have arguments for everything—it』s a very argumentative profession. These are all features of philosophy. But philosophy

should also be aiming to do rather more synthetic large-scale sorts of

things. Philosophy should be concerned with issues to do with the

meaning of life, ethical and political issues, and should be scrutinizing

the basic assumptions of our society. Philosophy has always been

something of a science of presuppositions; but it shouldn』t just expose

them and say 『there they are』. It should say something further about

them that can help people. As I get older and older I』m more and more

concerned that there should be more imagination in philosophy than

there is. At one stage it was all very clever, but rather dry. Although I

would never want to get quite as imaginative as the various

post-structuralist philosophers who put such a premium on imagination

that the analysis and argument drop out, I still think that there』s

something in offering a big picture about our circumstances, and I think

that that』s something that should be encouraged in philosophy.

Tony Coady:

哦,好吧,我是一個分析哲學家,所以我承認,哲學家們總是捲入分析工作:大量概念的分析.很多人都這樣覺得,哲學就只是在分析概念,把事情弄得更清楚,他們還認為你必須對所有事情都有自己的觀點--這其實是很好辯的表現.沒錯這些確實都是哲學的特點,但是哲學更重要的是把握大尺度的事物,例如關心和生命道德政治有關的意義,並且還要審視我們社會根基的假設.哲學一直以來都是科學的前設條件,但是它不能只是把現象揭露出來,說[嘿,在這兒],它必須說的更多,使得這現象對人們有用.隨著我越來越年長,我越來越意識到哲學應該比當下的樣子需要更多的想像空間.如果當下現狀只是一個階段,那很好,如果將來的哲學總是如此,那將很枯燥.我不會像形形色色的後結構主義哲學家那樣充滿想像力地分析和討論事物,但我始終認為關於我們當下的環境,需要一個更大的圖景去展現,這點,應該在哲學中受到鼓勵.

Tim Crane:

To quote Wilfrid Sellars, philosophy is the attempt to

understand how things in the most general sense of that word hang

together in the most general sense of those words.

Tim Crane:

正如 Wilfrid Sellars 所說, 哲學是嘗試去從那些最普遍意義上的詞中抽象出那個具有最普遍意義的詞.

(這句話完全沒把握,請看原文)

philosophy is the attempt to understand how things in the most general sense of that word hang together in the most general sense of those words.

Roger Crisp:

I think it』s something you have to do to understand its

essence.

Roger Crisp:

我認為哲學是一種你必須去了解的實質.

Don Cupitt:

Philosophy is critical thinking: trying to become aware

of how one』s own thinking works, of all the things one takes for granted,

of the way in which one』s own thinking shapes the things one』s thinking

about.

Don Cupitt:

哲學是批判性思維:努力去認識我們的思維是如何工作的,去認識所有我們習以為常的事情,去認識一個人的思考方式如何塑造我們所思考的對象.

Donna Dickenson:

Philosophy is what I was told as an undergraduate women couldn』t do—by an eminent philosopher who had best remain

nameless. But for me it』s the gadfly image, the Socratic gadfly: refusing

to accept any platitudes or accepted wisdom without examining it.

Donna Dickenson:

在我還是個本科女生,還無法解釋哲學是什麼時,我聽過一位著名哲學家的說法,我不是很喜歡他的說法,這說法就像蘇格拉底一樣喋喋不休:(哲學是)拒絕接受任何愚俗, 拒絕接受任何未經考察的智慧.

John Dunn:

I think it used to be an enquiry into what』s true and how

people should live; it』s distantly related to that still, but I』d say the

distance is growing rather than narrowing.

John Dunn:

我認為哲學曾經是一種對真理和對人該如何生活的追問,不過這種追問離獲得正確答案還有很遠的距離,並且我認為他正變得愈發的遙遠,而不是接近.

Luciano Floridi:

Philosophy is conceptual engineering. That means

dealing with questions that are open to informed reasonable disagreement

by providing new concepts that can be superseded in the future if more

economic solutions can be found—but it』s a matter of rational agreement.

Luciano Floridi:

哲學是種概念工程, 通過使用[具有可證偽性的概念](concepts that can be superseded in the future if more economic solutions can be found—but it』s a matter of rational agreement),對那些開放性問題提出合理且深刻的異見(disagreement).

Sebastian Gardner: Philosophy is the attempt to unify theoretical

and practical reason.

Sebastian Gardner:

哲學就是對統一理論理性和實踐理性的嘗試.

Raymond Geuss:

I』m afraid I have a very unhelpful answer to that,

because it』s only a negative answer. It』s the answer that Friedrich

Schlegel gave in his Athenaeum Fragments: philosophy is a way of trying

to be a systematic spirit without having a system.

Raymond Geuss:

我恐怕會提供一個並沒什麼用處的/否定的回答, 正如弗雷德里希`施萊格爾(Friedrich

Schlegel)在他的&<雅典殘篇&>(Athenaeum Fragments)所說:哲學就是一種試圖通過拒絕系統化的方式來成為系統化的精神.(philosophy is a way of trying to be a systematic spirit without having a system.)

A. C. Grayling:

Philosophy is enquiry into all those things which we

don』t yet properly and fully understand. When we do get some grip on a

problem or a set of problems we can hive that off into a special science or

a social science – although those natural and social sciences tend to end

up back as philosophical problems too—being those problems half

obscure, half unformed, where the questions are themselves doubtful,

where we』re peering out into the dark and don』t yet have a good sense of

what we』re doing. And that』s what philosophy is, it』s enquiry into the

mainly unknown.

A. C. Grayling:

哲學就是追問那些所有我們還不完全明白的東西.每當我們確實把握住了一個或一些問題的關鍵,就把他打包丟給(hive that off into)自然科學或社會科學----不過那些自然科學或社會科學最終還是會趨向於回歸到哲學問題----being those problems half

obscure, half unformed, where the questions are themselves doubtful,

where we』re peering out into the dark and don』t yet have a good sense of

what we』re doing. And that』s what philosophy is, it』s enquiry into the

mainly unknown.

Thomas Hurka:

Philosophy is abstract thought guided by principles

of logic and ideals of precision in thought and argumentation about the

most general issues concerning human beings and the world and our

place in the world.

Thomas Hurka:

哲學是遵循邏輯原則的抽象思考,是思索中的精確概念,是對那些關係到人類自身這個世界,以及我們在世界中的位置的最廣泛話題的推理論證.

Terence Irwin:

Some people have said, and I agree with them, that

it』s the argument from things that seem perfectly obvious to a conclusion

that』s extremely surprising. Other people have said that it』s a way of

trying to get clear about the basic presuppositions of claims we tend to

take for granted. Both of these are reasonably good ideas about what

philosophy tries to do.

Terence Irwin:

大家說的都不錯,我同意有部分人的觀點,這些人的觀點即是說,哲學是從那些顯而易見的事情中推出讓人令人驚訝的結論.其他人說哲學是為了明辨那些我們習以為常的預設,這也沒錯,它們都是哲學嘗試著在做的.

Chris Janaway:

Um . . . ah . . . that』s a very good question. I』m

reacting in the sort of way that you would expect philosophers to

react; they very often don』t give an answer, and people find that

suspicious. I suppose philosophy is the attempt to ask questions

which seem not to go away—questions which are always going to

be there.

Chris Janaway:

呃...哈...這是一個很好的問題(內心OS:呵呵),我的幾種反應正如你們所期料的那些哲學家的反應一樣;他們不會給你一個回答,反而讓人更加迷糊. 我猜哲學是試著去提出永恆的問題.

Anthony Kenny:

Philosophy is thinking as clearly as possible

about the most fundamental concepts that reach through all the

disciplines.

Anthony Kenny:

哲學是儘可能清晰地去思考那些貫穿所有原則的最基本概念.

Chandran Kukathas:

My understanding of philosophy probably owes

more to Michael Oakeshott than anybody else. Philosophy is an attempt

to think systematically about the presuppositions of a given topic; to try

to understand that topic in terms of concepts that give you a complete

account of something. So, for example, to the extent that philosophy

discusses ethics, it tries to give you an account of what is the nature of

morality. Or to the extent that philosophy discusses politics, it tries to

give you an account of what politics is in terms of concepts that make

sense of this phenomenon.

Chandran Kukathas:

我對哲學是什麼的理解, 受到Michael Oakeshott較大的影響. 哲學是一種對給定話題的前設條件進行系統性地思考的嘗試, 以及一種對那些能給你某事物完備解釋的概念進行理解的嘗試.舉個例子,拿哲學所討論的倫理學領域而言, 它就在試圖給你解釋什麼是道德的本質.而在哲學所討論的政治學領域, 它就在嘗試給你解釋那些能影響到現象的政治概念是什麼.

Will Kymlicka:

Well I』m in a philosophy department but I』m always

wondering what exactly I have in common with many of my colleagues, because, to be frank, I don』t necessarily understand the work

they do in the philosophy of language or metaphysics. There』s a certain

element of contingency about what remains in a philosophy department. Philosophy used to encompass economics and so on; and bits and

pieces have separated themselves out and become self-standing

disciplines, and what』s left is just what』s left, rather than anything

coherent uniting it. I think of myself as a political philosopher; I』m

interested in the normative evaluation of political life and state

institutions. And that』s fairly strongly connected to moral philosophy.

Moral philosophy, as Robert Nozick said, sets the boundaries of

political philosophy.

Will Kymlicka:

好吧, 我儘管身處哲學系, 但是我一直在好奇我的研究和我同學們的到底有什麼共同之處, 因為, 說實話, 我真的不懂他們在語言哲學或形而上學上的工作.

可能,某些偶然的東西還留在哲學中,哲學過去包含了包括經濟學在內的各種事務,如今他們都被孕育出來,並成了一門門獨立的學科,但現在這裡還剩下什麼,哲學就是什麼, 不必拘泥於邏輯思辨上的統一性.(比如)我自認為是一位政治哲學家(研究者),我喜歡對公民政治生活和國家制度做一些評價研究,這和倫理學有著深刻的聯繫,正如Robert Nozick 所言,倫理學是政治哲學的邊界.

Brian Leiter:

This is a hard question. I can tell you what academic philosophy is, and it bears some relation to what philosophy has been historically. That is, philosophy is concerned with foundational or fundamental questions about the nature of everything else that human beings do: how we live, how we ought to live, what art is, what we know, whether we know anything, what science is, and so on. In that sense philosophy really is the most capacious of all the disciplines even if it isn』t, as Kant thought, the queen of the sciences. But since we』ve just been talking about Nietzsche, we can』t forget that there is a very different conception of what philosophers are. A philosopher for Nietzsche was an honorific. It refers to the person who creates or legislates value. It』s the person who, to borrow an image from one of my colleagues at the University of Chicago, Judge Richard Posner, is a moral entrepreneur. It』s a nice image. It』s somebody who creates new ways of evaluating things—what』s important, what』s worthwhile— that changes how an entire culture or an entire people understand those things.

Brian Leiter:

這是個難題.我可以告訴你學院派的哲學是什麼,他與歷史上的曾有過的哲學一脈相承,也就是說,哲學關注和人類相關的一切事物,比方說:我們是怎麼生活的,我們應該如何生活,什麼是藝術,我們知道什麼,我們能否知道任何事,什麼是科學等等. 從這種角度來說,哲學無所不包,容納所有學科,正如康德所言,哲學是科學的女王.

但我們一旦開始談論尼采,我們就會對哲學家(philosophers)這個概念耳目一新.尼采心目中的哲學家是一個尊者,他創建並規定價值,借用我芝加哥大學同事Judge Richard Posner的話來說,他是一個道德企業家--這是個有趣的比喻,他創建了對價值進行評估的新方式,改變了整個文化或整個人類怎樣理解什麼重要,什麼值得這些事情.

Jerrold Levinson:

Oh, I didn』t know you were going to ask me the really hard questions. I can tell a joke that says what philosophy is. A young man is going on a date and he asks his father for advice. 『Dad, I』m really nervous, what will I talk about in the dead spots?』 The father says, 『Look son, there are the three Fs: there』s Food, Family, and Filosophy.』 So the son says, 『Okay, I』ll remember that.』 So he goes on a date and he』s with the date in the car after dinner; and there』s one of these lulls, and so he thinks what am I going to say, my teeth are clattering. Ah, I』ll remember my father』s advice. 『So Mary, do you like asparagus?』『Well, no John I don』t like asparagus.』『Well, Mary, do you have any brothers?』『Well actually John, I don』t have any brothers.』『Well, Mary, if you had a brother would he like asparagus?』 That』s philosophy.

Jerrold Levinson:

好吧,我根本沒想到你會問我這麼有挑戰性的問題.我只能給你講個笑話,這笑話道出了哲學是什麼:

有個年輕人打算趕赴約會,並且向他父親尋求建議."爸爸,我不知道如何避免在交談時踏入雷區, 這讓我很困擾." 他爸說:"聽著,孩子,有三個F開頭的單詞最好不要談論:食物,家庭,和哲學(filosophy)."

兒子回答道:"好的我知道了".於是他上路了,吃完餐後,把女孩約到了車裡;在車上有點空閑時間,於是他想,我該說點啥,我有點緊張.哦,我想起了我爸的建議.

"那麼,瑪麗,你喜歡蘆筍嗎?"

"不,約翰,我並不喜歡蘆筍."

"好吧,那麼瑪麗,你有兄弟嗎?"

"實際上,約翰,我沒有兄弟."

"很好,瑪麗,你覺得如果你有個兄弟,他會喜歡蘆筍嗎?"

這就是哲學.

M. M. McCabe:

Thinking about thinking.

M. M. McCabe:

(哲學是)對思考的思索;

Jeff McMahan:

Can I just laugh? I have no idea what philosophy is.

Jeff McMahan:

我可以笑而不語嗎?這東西我根本沒概念.

Ray Monk:

Philosophy is the attempt to understand ourselves and the world.

哲學是一種理解世界和我們自身的努力嘗試.

----

..................沒翻譯完,有空再翻譯.

A. W. Moore:

I』m hard pressed to say, but one thing that is certainly true is that 『What is Philosophy?』 is itself a striking philosophical question.

Alexander Nehamas:

I can』t answer that directly. I will tell you why I became a philosopher. I became a philosopher because I wanted to be able to talk about many, many things, ideally with knowledge, but sometimes not quite the amount of knowledge that I would need if I were to be a specialist in them. It allows you to be many different things. And plurality and complexity are very, very important to me.

Alex Neill: Philosophy is thinking that is obsessed with clarity.

David Papineau:

Philosophy is thinking hard about the most difficult problems that there are. And you might think scientists do that too, but there』s a certain kind of question whose difficulty can』t be resolved by getting more empirical evidence. It requires an untangling of presuppositions: figuring out that our thinking is being driven by ideas we didn』t even realize that we had. And that』s what philosophy is.

Anne Phillips:

Now I』m going to laugh. Philosophy for me is a way of thinking about dilemmas and contradictions. I don』t think of it in terms

of having to be abstracted from the real world, or having to be about hypothetical problems, but wherever you』re dealing with something where there』s a real dilemma and there are very good reasons to go one way, and very good reasons to go another, at that point I think you need philosophy.

Thomas Pogge:

I think that philosophy in the classical sense is the love of wisdom. So the question then is 『What is wisdom?』 And I think wisdom is understanding what really matters in the world. And that』s how I would answer people who say what I』m doing is not really philosophy. In my view what really matters is the enormous injustice that』s being perpetrated on the poor in this world. We have just heard from the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations that for the first time in human history there are more than a billion people who are chronically malnourished. The poorest half of humankind has 3 per cent of global household income: the richest half 97 per cent. If the poorest half had 4 per cent of global household income they wouldn』t have this severe poverty. And what the philosopher can do is just to say, 『this is something that matters』.

Janet Radcliffe Richards:

I regard philosophy as a mode of enquiry rather than a particular set of subjects. I regard it as involving the kind of questions where you』re not trying to find out how your ideas latch on to the world, whether your ideas are true or not, in the way that science is doing, but more about how your ideas hang together. This means that philosophical questions will arise in a lot of subjects. And if you haven』t got philosophical training you may well misunderstand the nature of a lot of those questions. So that』s how I prefer to think of philosophy—as a method, a kind of enquiry rather than a particular set of questions. Although of course there are some questions that can only be answered by that sort of enquiry.

Aaron Ridley:

(Laughs).

Ben Rogers:

(Laughs). I must get back to the day job.

Michael Sandel:

Philosophy is ref lecting critically on the way things are. That includes ref lecting critically on social and political and economic arrangements. It always intimates the possibility that things could be other than they are. And better.

Julian Savulescu:

Philosophy is in my view gaining knowledge through the use of reason and conceptual tools, a priori reason, and by ref lecting about oneself and the state of the world. It employs the empirical sciences, but it』s not a version of science. It』s gaining knowledge through rational ref lection. And in my own area philosophy is about understanding what people should do, what sort of person people should be, how people should act, by rationally ref lecting on the courses of action or the nature of human beings. I also think philosophy should encourage people to gain knowledge, and ref lect and to try to seek to understand the world and themselves through their capacity as rational animals.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong:

Philosophy is the search for a coherent and justified overall world-view. Philosophers should stop looking at little issues in the corner of our lives and try to see how things fit together; how psychology fits with philosophy, how the mind fits with the body, how aesthetic value relates to economic value and justice.

Those are the big issues:

how do we fit together the different aspects of our lives? And that』s what philosophy ought to be addressing.

Barry Smith:

I think it』s thinking fundamentally clearly and well about the nature of reality and our place in it, so as to understand better what goes on around us, and what our contribution is to that reality, and its effect on us.

Robert Rowland Smith:

I think the Greek term has it exactly right;it』s a way of loving knowledge.

Paul Snowdon:

Philosophy is the name we give to a collection of questions which are of deep interest to us and for which there isn』t any specialist way of answering. The categories in terms of which they are posed are ones which prevent experiments being carried out to answer them, so we』re thrown back on trying to answer them on the basis of evidence we can accumulate. For example, 『Does God exist?』 You can』t hand that question over to some chap in a white coat to do an experiment. The category 『God』 isn』t a category suitable for conducting experiments to determine whether there』s something of that sort or not. How do we decide? Well we simply have to weigh up the arguments for and against the existence of this kind of entity. And that is the general character of philosophical questions. Do values exist? Does the soul exist? Do sense data exist? And so on. 『Philosophy』 is the name for that group of deep and important questions where there is no simple experimental way of answering them, and yet we want to know the

answers.

Kate Soper:

I think that one of the important things that philosophy is trying to do is to respect both the cultural relativity and historicity of our ideas while at the same time tease out what might be more transhistorical, trans-cultural truths.

Raymond Tallis:

One of my favourite definitions comes from Wilfrid Sellars. It is trying to see how things in the wider sense hang together in the wider sense. And my dream of philosophy is to make the universe we live in mind-portable, so instead of being possessed by it, you possess it.

Tzvetan Todorov:

Philosophy is a subject that all French students have to take in the last class of high school. And they just hate it, because they can』t understand what philosophy is about. To answer more seriously, philosophy was a way of searching for wisdom, of leading a wiser life. And I adhere to this conception of philosophy.

Keith Ward:

I have a traditional, almost Indian approach to this: I think philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, and that includes spiritual wisdom. So this means asking questions about the nature of the human self and the nature of reality, and how this will affect your life in practice. And in that sense, although I have experienced Oxford philosophy at its most intense, I』m definitely not an ordinary language philosopher.

Jonathan Wolff:

Well, I can tell you how philosophical problems arise in my view, which is where two common-sense notions push in different directions, and then philosophy gets started. And I suppose I also think that anything that claims to be philosophy which can』t be related back to a problem that arises in that way probably is empty.

因為翻譯很辛苦,謝絕隨意轉載.

謝邀.

1.懂哲學有什麼標準嗎

沒有普遍的標準，有個體的主觀的標準。

2.（懂哲學的標準）是根據哲學思想建立起自己的世界觀和方法論嗎

當這個「自己的」是指自我建構的試圖邏輯自洽的本體論的完整體系時，不是，除了建構的哲學還有解構的哲學。

當這個「自己的」指的是個人的看待事物的方式時，可以是。

多看，多讀，多想，做到言之有據

懂哲學不難，重要的是懂你自己。

當然啦…舉個例子：所有的實在中只有御坂御坂確確實實地懂哲學…

反正這種話也不用當哲學論文交上去，所以怎麼說都行對不對…（光速逃♂

謝邀。

哲學是一條通往真理的道路。嚴格來講，人類思維的理性部分是遵循著邏輯去接近真理的，除此以外，沒有絕對的標準能夠規定它。

以下是羅素的話：

哲學，就我對這個詞的理解來說，乃是某種介乎神學與科學之間的東西。它和神學一樣，包含著人類對於那些迄今仍為確切的知識所不能肯定的事物的思考；但是它又象科學一樣是訴之於人類的理性而不是訴之於權威的，不管是傳統的權威還是啟示的權威。一切·確·切·的知識——我是這樣主張的——都屬於科學；一切涉及超乎確切知識之外的·教·條都屬於神學。但是介乎神學與科學之間還有一片受到雙方攻擊的無人之域；這片無人之域就是哲學。思辯的心靈所最感到興趣的一切問題，幾乎都是科學所不能回答的問題；而神學家們的信心百倍的答案，也已不再象它們在過去的世紀里那麼令人信服了。世界是分為心和物嗎？如果是這樣，那麼心是什麼？物又是什麼？心是從屬於物的嗎？還是它具有獨立的能力呢？宇宙有沒有任何的統一性或者目的呢？它是不是朝著某一個目標演進的呢？究竟有沒有自然律呢？還是我們信仰自然律僅僅是出於我們愛好秩序的天性呢？人是不是天文學家所看到的那種樣子，是由不純粹的碳和水化合成的一塊微小的東西，無能地在一個渺小而又不重要的行星上爬行著呢？還是他是哈姆雷特所看到的那種樣子呢？也許他同時是兩者嗎？有沒有一種生活方式是高貴的，而另一種是卑賤的呢？還是一切的生活方式全屬虛幻無謂呢？假如有一種生活方式是高貴的，它所包含的內容又是什麼？我們又如何能夠實現它呢？善，為了能夠值得受人尊重，就必須是永恆的嗎？

或者說，哪怕宇宙是堅定不移地趨向於死亡，它也還是值得加以追求的嗎？究竟有沒有智慧這樣一種東西，還是看來彷彿是智慧的東西，僅僅是極精鍊的愚蠢呢？對於這些問題，在實驗室里是找不到答案的。各派神學都曾宣稱能夠做出極其確切的答案，但正是他們的這種確切性才使近代人滿腹狐疑地去觀察他們。對於這些問題的研究——如果不是對於它們的解答的話，——就是哲學的業務了。

…………

自從人類能夠自由思考以來，他們的行動在許多重要方面都有賴於他們對於世界與人生的各種理論，關於什麼是善什麼是惡的理論。這一點在今天正象在已往任何時候是同樣地真確。要了解一個時代或一個民族，我們必須了解它的哲學；要了解它的哲學，我們必須在某種程度上自己就是哲學家。這裡就有一種互為因果的關係，人們生活的環境在決定他們的哲學上起著很大的作用，然而反過來他們的哲學又在決定他們的環境上起著很大的作用。

———————羅素《西哲史.緒論》

人和哲學的關係其實也是互為因果的關係，你在自己的理性支配下必然會尋找一切問題的答案，在研究哲學的道路上，這些答案會慢慢顯露，從而形成了你的世界觀和人生觀。

不好意思，我不知道怎麼跟你解釋，因為我只懂哲♂學

選擇加入暗♂黑或者光♂明勢力，然後向自己的導師尋求教♂導。經過一番實♂戰後方可總結經♂驗，提煉出活的靈魂作為你自己哲♂學的一部分。

Boy，你懂♂了么？

哲學是思維的過程，科學是思維的結果。仔細體悟出這句話的含義，才算哲學初入門。

簡單講科學是：1+1=2，哲學是：1+1為什麼=2。

簡言之就是一點——我自知我無知（I konw I know nothing）。此命題亦是哲學的根本源頭所在。

對普通人來說，能夠自覺的批判性的思考問題，就已經得到了哲學最寶貴的財富吧。

有理有據

意識共同體的自我定位總是隨著個體的變化而變化。

如果有三人以上互相承認懂哲學，那就是哲學。其他人否定你們只是他們不懂你們的流派。

由於人所描述皆是近似，也就沒有絕對正誤。

但任何學科並不能脫離「人」的觀察層面而獨立存在。

搞清楚一些生命的底層問題。比如，你為什麼活著？你為什麼學習？你想成為一個什麼樣的人？你在乎什麼不在乎什麼？你做的事情有什麼意義？你在追求怎樣的價值……

個人的膚淺理解，哲學的最終目的就是要搞明白這些問題，其實每一個認真或者的人都應該思考這些問題。有時候覺得人生中的大部分困惑迷茫和煩惱，就是因為你想不明白這些問題，或者說很多人從來沒有想過這些問題。

哲學定義就是有系統性反思，即整體性，根本性思考。

思考獨立思考理性思考跨越理性自己本身的障礙思考

學會如何摔♂跤

在不同的標準下會得到不同的結論。如果要強行得出個在所有標準下可適用的結論，那應該會是這句話「知之為知之，不知為不知，是知也」

那要看你要誰覺得你懂了

懂哲學有兩層概念。

狹義的一層是知道並且涉獵了所有已知哲學學派。

閱讀過每個學派的主要著作。並且對這些學派的思想特點都有群清晰的了解。

每個學派都有一套解釋世界的方法。

廣義的懂哲學就是了解一種學派的思想，並且以為其是真理。

當然，人性的天然哲學也算數。

這些人就是哲學民科。