这周末读 Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club, 刚读完第一部分, 有了些感想, 写在这里和大家分享.
形而上学俱乐部存在的时间并不长, 只有九个月. 但影响非常深远. 俱乐部的几个重要成员: Oliver Wendall Holmes (霍姆斯), William James, Charles Sanders Pierce and Wright. 成果是Pierce的学生 Dewey, 也就是胡适的老师杜威, 创立的实用主义哲学. 这些人的一个共同的特点是对the role beliefs play in people's lives进行思考并表示怀疑. 在我读的关于霍姆斯的这一章里, 南北战争显然给他留下了无法愈合的经历. 战后他先去拜访了父亲的老友爱默生, 看看自己有无可能做一个如父亲和爱默生一样的哲学家, 答案是否. 因为 他放弃了the idea of doing it in the way Emerson and his father had done it(philosophy)--by synthesis and introspection. He thought it could be done better by scholars and anylysis.霍姆斯对pre-civil war's generalism的拒绝代表了向professionalism的转变. 他的战争经历让他发现: soliders who understand the mechanics of battle fought better--more effectively, but also more bravely--than soldiers who were motivated chiefly by enthusiasm for a cause. 他的这一信念被许多同代人分享. 霍姆斯后来进了哈佛大学法学院,成为联邦大法官. 虽然他后来引起许多争议, 但他的法理思想影响深远. professinalism 虽然后来走得太远, 但在美国进入现代社会之初意义深远. 明治维新成功的原因之一也要归功于这种professinalism.
因此,读中国一些坚守的理想主义者(刘余等人)对学者的愤愤不平,对他们自私冷漠的抱怨, 不知道可不可以用这种分野来解释?
下面是一段引言:
Holmes's rejection of the intellectual style of prewar Boston mirrored a generational shift. To many of the men who had been through the war, the values of professionalism and expertise were attractive; they implied impersonality, respect for institutions as efficient organizers of enterprise, and a modern and scientific attitude--the opposite of the individualism, humantarianism, and moralism that characterized Northern intellectual life before the war......He had not given up the hope of a glimpse of the infinite. He narrowed himself in order better to expand.
还有一个有趣的事:詹姆斯们的父亲老Henry, 是相信民主和新教主义互相echo的. :-)
- Re: 初读posted on 05/01/2005
这倒符合了我自己长期的一个想法 - 功利主义和实用主义相对理想主义人道主义而言倒是更容易和现实政治接轨,因此能产生更建设性的成果。但这种冷漠的手术医生式的态度(professionalism)却具有异化(机器化)人性的危险,在集权社会里使用不当可能弊大于利。在今天的中国,我们需要professionalism的expertise和技巧,也需要人道主义理想主义的关怀和呼号,两者何者为重我倒没太想过,似乎就知识界而言并不能偏颇任何一方。
在纽约时我未能给你电话,等下想打过去。 - posted on 05/02/2005
回来晚了, 估计你那边已夜深人静, 不便打绕. 再找时间.
我不是指集权社会里使用专家主义, 而是指把从集权社会向民主社会的转型当做一个job去做, 少喊空口号, 少做价值评判, 少一些sentimental自怜自恨的东西. 你说的两者并重固然再好不过, 可是在中国这样的社会里, 可能更缺professionalism. 列文森(Levenson)曾谈过中国文人的业余精神, 定义Wen Jen(文人)为the literary man, the amateur, 他们对人文行业的professionals有一种深深的鄙视, 今天仍然如此. 说到底, 当然还是官本位体制的影响. 总之, 现代化是全方位的, 需要各行各业的专业思想家, 当然也需要你所说的人道主义者. 不过, 作为个人, 不可能选择两者, 因为实用主义(pragmatism)的基础是对人性的深深怀疑.和理想主义是不同的.
当然, 我的本意不是要谈中国, 也不是要下结论, 只是有些感想记下来, 同时假如有人对这本书感兴趣, 也算是一个介绍. 下面如有感想,可能会继续写下来.
adagio wrote:
这倒符合了我自己长期的一个想法 - 功利主义和实用主义相对理想主义人道主义而言倒是更容易和现实政治接轨,因此能产生更建设性的成果。但这种冷漠的手术医生式的态度(professionalism)却具有异化(机器化)人性的危险,在集权社会里使用不当可能弊大于利。在今天的中国,我们需要professionalism的expertise和技巧,也需要人道主义理想主义的关怀和呼号,两者何者为重我倒没太想过,似乎就知识界而言并不能偏颇任何一方。
在纽约时我未能给你电话,等下想打过去。 - Re: 初读posted on 05/02/2005
二位的讨论有意思。我也是主张少谈些主义,多做点实事。不过,在青少年教育上,应该以人道主义为本。 - posted on 05/02/2005
若之 wrote:
我不是指集权社会里使用专家主义, 而是指把从集权社会向民主社会的转型当做一个job去做, 少喊空口号, 少做价值评判, 少一些sentimental自怜自恨的东西. 你说的两者并重固然再好不过, 可是在中国这样的社会里, 可能更缺professionalism.
这个我同意。上次电话里也谈起中国知识分子自五四以来的一大特征 - 一涉及政治话题就流于愤激的情绪(不过话说回来,谈到中国国事不气愤,仍能平心静气是很需要定力的)和道德攻击,少具体办法。我们一直呼吁一个强大的中产阶级在中国的成长,这个阶级就是由各种务实的professional构成的。但我忧虑的是,以中国目前的情形看,随着这个阶级的壮大,他们中大多数人会对贫富悬殊等不公平的社会现象越来越冷漠,越来越利己主义 。。。南美等国也有强大的中产阶级呀,也有众多生活优裕的professional人士,但整个社会而言是非常病入膏肓的。这个怕是中国的未来。。。
列文森(Levenson)曾谈过中国文人的业余精神, 定义Wen Jen(文人)为the literary man, the amateur, 他们对人文行业的professionals有一种深深的鄙视, 今天仍然如此. 说到底, 当然还是官本位体制的影响.
今天怕是官商合一本位了。所以,这种对人文行业的professionals的深深鄙视恐怕还会继续 。。。
总之, 现代化是全方位的, 需要各行各业的专业思想家, 当然也需要你所说的人道主义者. 不过, 作为个人, 不可能选择两者, 因为实用主义(pragmatism)的基础是对人性的深深怀疑.和理想主义是不同的.
这就是为什么我认为实用主义的策略会在政治上获得更建设性的成果,因为它先设想人性是恶的,再想法去制约限制这种恶,这就比理想主义的空想热忱更具有操作性,更易于理性的控制。这也是我推崇英美政治的原因。但是,这个实用主义又必须本着理想主义的内在秉性,否则一切都是无谓的 。。。
当然, 我的本意不是要谈中国, 也不是要下结论, 只是有些感想记下来, 同时假如有人对这本书感兴趣, 也算是一个介绍. 下面如有感想,可能会继续写下来.
希望你一直写。这将是个有意义的话题。 - posted on 05/07/2005
八兄, 你上次布置的作业我还一直没做, 就拿这些零零星星的读后感滥竽充数如何?:-)
胡适的话我通常同意后半句: 多做点实事, 小心求证. 我觉得主义还是要谈, 只是不能像五四前辈那样采取实用的拿来主义的态度, 要不各种毫不相干甚至对立的主义都会给装进一个袋子里去.
本书下面相当一部分谈的是十九世纪末各种科学思潮(达尔文, 统计学, probabilism etc.)及其对人文学和社会的影响, 现代科学的grant制度的建立. 总之是围绕哈佛大学及新英格兰的精英家族(无论是智力还是财力)们. 八兄是科学家, 科学方面咱就不班门弄斧了, 也省省笔墨.有意思的是相当一部分科学家反对废奴, 主张人种优越,还有你以前写过的优生学. 现在玛雅住的堪萨斯又在审理与达尔文有关的案子. 据说美国有百分之九十的人不信近化论. 科学的进步和人类社会的进步似乎是俩码子事.
八十一子 wrote:
二位的讨论有意思。我也是主张少谈些主义,多做点实事。不过,在青少年教育上,应该以人道主义为本。 - posted on 05/07/2005
若之 wrote:
八兄, 你上次布置的作业我还一直没做, 就拿这些零零星星的读后感滥竽充数如何?:-)
很如何!:-)
据说美国有百分之九十的人不信近化论. 科学的进步和人类社会的进步似乎是俩码子事.
这"据说"二字好像水分较大!:-)
前不久看到一个统计,高中以下教育程度的美国人有大约60%相信上帝创造了世界,而大学以上程度的大概是30%。比较令人担忧的是,美国大学生目前对intelligent design相当感兴趣。在这方面自然科学家应该跟基督教结为同盟军,因为基督教的神学教条也是容不下intelligent design的。 :-)
八兄是科学家, 科学方面咱就不班门弄斧了, 也省省笔墨.
汗颜! - posted on 05/08/2005
xixi, 这个60%加30%不就是90%了吗? 八教授的算术好像没学好喔! :-)
intelligent design不是披着科学外衣的创造论吗? 基督教为什么也反对呢?
八十一子 wrote:
这"据说"二字好像水分较大!:-)
前不久看到一个统计,高中以下教育程度的美国人有大约60%相信上帝创造了世界,而大学以上程度的大概是30%。比较令人担忧的是,美国大学生目前对intelligent design相当感兴趣。在这方面自然科学家应该跟基督教结为同盟军,因为基督教的神学教条也是容不下intelligent design的。 :-)
- posted on 05/08/2005
实用主义(pragmatism)这个词是Peirce从康德的 “纯粹理性批判”中借来的. Once an end is accepted, the conditions of its attainment are hypothetically necessary.” 康德用医生看病为例, 将其根据经验得出的结论命名为pragmatic belief(contingent belief), 这种belief带有betting的性质. 但是这种实用的belief在康德那里只是几种之一, 但到了pierce那里却成了唯一. 因为In a world that never repeats itself with exactitude, all believing is betting. 这里听起来很有点唯名主义(nominalism)的味道, 但pierce实际上是很反对唯名, 因为他相信他父亲的教导: the world is made to be known by the mind — the two are wonderfully matched. Pierce认为唯名主义过于强调知识的个体性, 否定其社会性. 总之, pierce 在他通向unsuccess的道路上留下了许多brilliant insights. 这里, 我发觉难怪人虽然千奇百怪, 但他们思考起来却很难摆脱俗见偏见谬见, 而且也就是那么几种, 大概因为人是用语言在思考, 受到的局限和影响实在太多了.
Willam James认为Pluralism 就是承认there is more than one way of considering a case. 当然, 这种多元化走得太极端也会带来民主的泛滥成灾.
- Re: 初读posted on 05/08/2005
目前Evangelical Christians是intelligent design的主要支持者。不过,基督教徒对intelligent design大概会有两个大问题。第一,一般神学理论认为上帝的行为对人类而言是隐藏的,不可知的,而intelligent design鼓吹用实证的“科学”方法来证明上帝的存在,了解上帝的行为。第二,intelligent design可以适用于任何一个创造者,并不能证明基督教是唯一正确的宗教。
若之 wrote:
intelligent design不是披着科学外衣的创造论吗? 基督教为什么也反对呢?
- posted on 05/09/2005
不好意思, 下网越想越不对头, 是我的算术不好. 你是对的,据说的水份是很大. :-)
谢谢下面的解释. 神学派别林立, 这里的反对者听起来很fundamental.
八十一子 wrote:
目前Evangelical Christians是intelligent design的主要支持者。不过,基督教徒对intelligent design大概会有两个大问题。第一,一般神学理论认为上帝的行为对人类而言是隐藏的,不可知的,而intelligent design鼓吹用实证的“科学”方法来证明上帝的存在,了解上帝的行为。第二,intelligent design可以适用于任何一个创造者,并不能证明基督教是唯一正确的宗教。
若之 wrote:
intelligent design不是披着科学外衣的创造论吗? 基督教为什么也反对呢?
- Re: 初读posted on 05/09/2005
若之 wrote:若之还忒认真!累不累呀! (c:
不好意思, 下网越想越不对头, 是我的算术不好. 你是对的,据说的水份是很大. :-)
- posted on 05/09/2005
你只在周末上网,偏偏周末我又难得上网,总是错过了。
I went to a seminar titled as How Minds Work on Saturday and a congitive science expert from UC Berkeley mentioned the idealist view of human mind, particularly Kant, who elaborated this view into innate categories of mind, and concluded that all that we can know about the real world is filtered through our senses, which distort our apprehension of the world and prevent us from knowing it as it actually is. This might sound like Pierce's father - the world is made to be known by the mind — the two are wonderfully matched. So the world (to each individual) is very subjective indeed.
In fact, this subjectivity is regarded as the main distinction between human consciousness and that of artifitial intelligence. Before I thought that human consciousness was unique because of the sense of self - only we can be conscious about our consciousness and the rest of the animal kingdom can't - but at the seminar I learned that in near future it's possible for AI to have its sense of self too, which is scary, for in my view it will bring chaos into human life. If that happens, how do you diffentiate human from AI? But the expert on AI research told me that AI can never be like human mind for it can never be subjective. Does this only make semantic sense? I don't know.
Anyhow, this cognitive science is only in its infancy. When it makes big discoveries in the next 100 years all theoris of the past philosophers on how human mind knowing the world will become obsolete for sure.
若之 wrote:
实用主义(pragmatism)这个词是Peirce从康德的 “纯粹理性批判”中借来的. Once an end is accepted, the conditions of its attainment are hypothetically necessary.” 康德用医生看病为例, 将其根据经验得出的结论命名为pragmatic belief(contingent belief), 这种belief带有betting的性质. 但是这种实用的belief在康德那里只是几种之一, 但到了pierce那里却成了唯一. 因为In a world that never repeats itself with exactitude, all believing is betting. 这里听起来很有点唯名主义(nominalism)的味道, 但pierce实际上是很反对唯名, 因为他相信他父亲的教导: the world is made to be known by the mind — the two are wonderfully matched. Pierce认为唯名主义过于强调知识的个体性, 否定其社会性. 总之, pierce 在他通向unsuccess的道路上留下了许多brilliant insights. 这里, 我发觉难怪人虽然千奇百怪, 但他们思考起来却很难摆脱俗见偏见谬见, 而且也就是那么几种, 大概因为人是用语言在思考, 受到的局限和影响实在太多了.
Willam James认为Pluralism 就是承认there is more than one way of considering a case. 当然, 这种多元化走得太极端也会带来民主的泛滥成灾.
- Re: 初读posted on 05/09/2005
How Minds Work on Saturday
Sounds good. What about other days? :-)
Actually hominoids exhibit self-consciousness too - they would look into a mirror and apparently enjoy watching themselves. Lower primates would go around the mirror in order to touch "the other one”.
Not sure how “a sense of self” is defined here for AI. Avoidance of danger? But that is true for almost all animals.
- Re: 初读posted on 05/09/2005
I think the sense of self is probably something more than the consciousness of self being exist, it also involves that the self is aware of its position and situation in the enviornment, and is aware of the fact that it's acting by making choices, and the fact that it can make choices, and further more, it shows an attempt to willfully control its behaviors to have an impact on the environment. This just stops short of (yet is related to) that glamourous word - freewill. - Re: How minds work on Saturdayposted on 05/14/2005
Sounds like a perfect title for amateur thinkers like us. :-)
八十一子 wrote:
How Minds Work on SaturdaySounds good. What about other days? :-)
- posted on 05/14/2005
It makes perfect sense. As a matter of fact, it’s this subjectivity, ideas furnished by sensation, rather than the theory of sin (although there is a deep association between the two), that triggered the whole British Empirical school, from Locke to Kant (who synthesized rationalism and empiricism), to Berkely and Hume, and to Pierce and James in America, and then to the modern cognitive science. Philosophers might exist no more(they've become rare speices already), but history won't forget the light they shed on our minds. (Let me extol the virtues of this dying profession for a moment. :-)
As for free will, let me avoid this stark truth (that is there is no such a thing as free will) for as long as possible. The explanation you made on the sense of self is very thorough.)
adagio wrote:
In fact, this subjectivity is regarded as the main distinction between human consciousness and that of artifitial intelligence. Before I thought that human consciousness was unique because of the sense of self - only we can be conscious about our consciousness and the rest of the animal kingdom can't - but at the seminar I learned that in near future it's possible for AI to have its sense of self too, which is scary, for in my view it will bring chaos into human life. If that happens, how do you diffentiate human from AI? But the expert on AI research told me that AI can never be like human mind for it can never be subjective. Does this only make semantic sense? I don't know.
Anyhow, this cognitive science is only in its infancy. When it makes big discoveries in the next 100 years all theoris of the past philosophers on how human mind knowing the world will become obsolete for sure.
- posted on 05/14/2005
第十三章才开始全面谈实用主义(Pragmatism). 读完这一章, 发现前面说的有误. 杜威更多是个实践家, 社会改良家(a truly good fellow, just like Hu Shi), 但他的理论读起来劲道不够. 难怪Pierce说他的理论缺乏intellectual rigor. 实用主义最重要的几位当属:
Oliver Wendall Holmes (霍姆斯): 不少人认为美国有史以来最伟大的大法官, 这归功于他作为哲学家和文学家的素养. 在谈到经验主义和实用主义时不能忽视英美法律的判例法传统. 霍姆斯在他的Common Law一书中的名言: The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” 他不相信在法律的背后有一个ideal order, 正如实用主义不相信真理是客观唯一的一样. 霍的经验有很多含义, 这里无法一一道来. 但有一点是: 他不相信人们根据principles and general ideas作出抉择. 而是根据whatever it worked before. First they decide, then they deduce. 案例法要求对经验和历史的尊重, 因果关系和类比是其常用的方法. 霍认为对好法官的训练不是通过教他们几条原则和规则, 而是通过一个一个的案例. 他还提出the reasonable man的经验, 认为经验是collective and consensual, 不是 individual and internal(与James相反.) 在中国近些年来的变革中, 经济学成为显学, 但法学的变革实际上将是更艰难的.
William James: 我个人感到他的实用主义与休谟的经验主义差别不大, 连举例都类似. 所以他说实用主义是a new account of old thinking. 也难怪罗素说休谟已经将他那一类的哲学发展到顶端. 但詹姆斯从心理学的角度对beliefs作了更深入的探讨. 强调习惯对道德, identities和因果关系的作用. 但康德指出, some ideas, such as the idea of causation, we only infer it, must be innate, wired from birth. 这个听起来和基因已经很接近了. J
Pierce: 实用主义的很多想法来自于Pierce, 实际上James的The Principles of Psychology就是献给他的. 但他 对James和 Dewey的批判耐人寻味: They make truth, which is the matter of fact, to be a matter of a way of thinking or even a linguistic expression. 实际上, 这也是Pierce的观点. 他写道: if our behavior is perfectly arbitrary—that is, not habitual—we would have no identity; the price of having an identity is an inability fundamentally to transform it. Every organism has the potential to produce a variety of responses to a given stimulus: the peculiar characteristic of habit. Those responses cannot be random, since if they were, law would not be possible. Thus the definition of a thing as the sum of its possible behaviors is what Pierce had meant by his “principle of pragmatism.”
但与James和 Dewey不同的是, Pierce仍然相信一切事物都在move towards a condition of absolute law or complete determinism, in which chance will disappear and all habits will be perfectly fixed. 这个前景我很不喜欢, 但看看人类的发展趋势, 说不定真是在朝那个方向走.
实用主义是对十九世纪末种种科学和社会变化的回应, 对暴力及的恐惧(南北战争)是其流行的社会心理基础. 杜威认为: antagonism(对抗or对立) is unnecessary, is based on a misunderstanding of one’s best interests, and it leads to violence. 实用主义为美国社会从传统社会向现代社会的过渡提供了方法论工具. 假如我们想在19世纪末的美国与现在的中国之间找比较点, 一个根本的区别是: 美国当时已经是确立了民主制.
- Re: 实用主义posted on 05/14/2005
嘿,若之。今天撞到你了。原来实用主义并不象我想的那么浅薄,但也走到死胡同了。Willian James的思想还值得去挖一挖,他受Bergson的影响至深,我准备找些渊源。记得James的一个实用主义的有趣实例是,他不信任何宗教,却又承认上帝的存在和宗教的力量,理由是人类在各种伟大宗教的影响下在社会和艺术层面都作出了惊人创造,足以证明神的存在。这只看结果不看动机的判断,真够实用的。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation