We've been looking at Plato's arguments for the immortality of the soul,
但到目前为止
and so far
我觉得没有一个能令人信服
I have to say I haven't found them very compelling arguments.
接下来 我们继续讨论一个
In a minute, I'm going to turn to an argument that
至少我个人觉得更为有趣的论点
at least strikes me as more interesting.
想出它的具体错误更为不易
It's more difficult to pin down where it goes wrong.
不过讨论之前
But before we do,
我想对上节课末尾讨论的那个观点
I want to make a couple of comments about the arguments
简单的再讨论一下
we were considering at the end of last class.
上堂课最后我们谈到了"回忆论"
That was the argument from recollection.
它的大意为
You recall the basic idea was that
尽管在我们所熟知的现实世界里面
although objects in the ordinary familiar empirical world
没有绝对的公正
are not perfectly just,
没有正圆 或者其他
perfectly round, what have you,
但这些事物却让我们联想到绝对公正
they're able to remind us of perfect justice,
正圆等等
perfect roundness and the like.
于是柏拉图问自己
And when Plato asked himself,
那是为什么
"How could that be?"
他给出的答案是
the answer he gives is,
这是因为我们来到这个世界之前
"Well, it's got to be that we were previously acquainted
就已经熟知那些事物了
with the forms before our life in this world."
这就说明
And that shows that
灵魂必须先于肉体而存在
the soul must be something that existed prior to the creation of the body.
人人影视
www.YYeTs
这就是"回忆论"的观点
That's the argument from recollection.
还有在下课前我提到
And at the very end of class I suggested that,
即使柏拉图的观点是对的
look, even if we were to grant to Plato that
他说为了探讨正义 正圆 或者其他
in order to think about justice,circularity, what have you,
我们必须对柏拉图型相有所了解
we had to somehow grasp the forms,
就算我们承认柏拉图是对的
and even if we were to grant to Plato that
这个世界上并不存在绝对的正圆和公正
nothing in this world is perfectly round or perfectly just,
但这并不意味着
it's not necessarily correct to say,
对此唯一合理的解释
"So the only possible explanation of what's going on is
就是这个现实世界里的事物
that these things in the empirical world
让我们想起了曾经遇见的型相
remind us of our prior acquaintance with the forms."
还有可能是因为
It could be that what goes on is,
当我们接触到一些
when we bump up against something
并非绝对公正 绝对美丽 绝对正圆
that's partially just or partially beautiful or partially round--
即有缺陷的事物时
imperfectly round--what happen
s is,
这些事物会在某种程度上驱使我们
those things sort of trigger our minds in such a way that
去首次开始认知这些型相
we begin to think about the forms for the very first time.
因此可以说为了探讨公正和正圆
So it might be, in order to think about justice and roundness,
我们必须先掌握型相
we have to grasp the forms.
但也可能我们只是此生才开始
But it could be that we only grasp the forms in this life,
认知这些型相
for the very first time.
在接触并
Exposure to the things that
见识了这些型相后 它们会
participate in the forms may nudge our minds or our souls in such a way
驱使我们的心灵或灵魂去认知它们
that at that point--given that exposure--we begin to grasp the forms.
就好比生活中最平常的琐屑小物
It's as though the ordinary earthly objects,
与我们彼此相遇之后
we bump into them or they bump into us,
会指引我们仰望美好的柏拉图境界
and they get us to look upwards to the heavenly Platonic realm.
我不是说真的仰望
I don't mean literally upwards.
这不是在说数字3
It's not as though these things--the number three--
在上面
is up there.
而是说一旦你理解了这个隐喻
But if you accept the metaphor,
在现实世界中碰到一些东西
running into things in the empirical world
使我们的心灵开始第一次的思考
gets our minds to start thinking about, for the first time,
美好的柏拉图境界的型相和理念
the heavenly realm of the Platonic forms and ideas.
这个解释和之前的那个理论一样合理
That would be just as likely a possibility as the alternative explanation
就是说普通的现实物体
that what's going on is that ordinary empirical objects
使我们想起之前的印象(不是唯一解释)
are reminding us of our prior acquaintance.
或许这些普通物体就像入门引言一样
Perhaps these ordinary objects act like letters of introduction,
指引我们 帮助我们
getting us to, helping us to,
去开始首次思考这些型相上的事物
think about the forms for the very first time.
如果这是对的
Well, if that's right, then of course,
我们当然就不必相信柏拉图之后的
we don't have any good reason to follow Plato when he says,
灵魂一定是先于肉体而存在的观点
"It must be the case that the soul existed prior to the--prior to birth."
我刚刚提出的这个反驳不是柏拉图
Now, the objection I've just raised is not an objection
在《斐多篇》中提到的
that Plato raises in the Phaedo,
不过他提出了另外一个异议
but he does raise a different objection.
请记住我们的讨论
Remember our concern isn't,
严格来讲不仅仅是问
strictly speaking, with the question,
灵魂在我们出生前存在吗
"Did the soul exist before our birth?
灵魂是先于肉体的存在吗
Did the soul exist before our bodies?
"
而是要问 灵魂是不朽的吗
but rather, "Is the soul immortal?"
现在根据他的"回忆论"
And so, having now given the argument from recollection,
柏拉图假设出的苏格拉底的两个门徒
Plato envisions two of Socrates' disciples,
西米亚斯和塞贝斯
Simmias and Cebes,
做了如下的反驳
responding, objecting, by saying,
就算灵魂在人出生前就存在
"Look, even if the soul existed before birth,
这并不能说明它在肉体死亡后依然存在
it doesn't follow that it exists after death.
毕竟这才是
And that's, after all,
我们真正想要的
what we really want,
并且在思考的
are wondering about.
我们想知道
We want to know,
我们能否在死亡之后继续存活
will we survive our deaths?
灵魂是否不朽
Is the soul immortal?
但是苏格拉底
And you haven't yet
你还没有进行证明呢
shown that Socrates,"
他们继续反驳道
they object.
也许它先前确实存在
Could be that it existed before,
但此后它未必依然存在
but won't exist afterwards.
但有趣的是
But very nicely--
这里的结构非常巧妙
it's quite elegant structure at this point--
苏格拉底把我们前面提到的
Socrates puts together the two arguments that
这两种观点
we've just been rehearsing--
即"回忆论"及其之前的另一种观点
the argument from recollection and the argument that came before that,
我称作"循环论"的观点结合起来了
the one that I dubbed "the argument from recycling."
回忆一下 "循环论"的观点认为
Remember, the argument from recycling says,
当你组装一件东西时
when you build something,
你用的是零件
you build it out of parts,
当东西解体后则又变成了各种零件
and when that thing falls apart you go back to the parts.
所以先前的零件被循环利用了
So the prior parts get recycled.
而灵魂 我们可以说
The soul, we now say--
根据"回忆论"的观点
based on the argument from recollection--
灵魂好比我们出生前的一零件
the soul is one of our prior parts.
灵魂在我们出生之前就存在
The soul existed before we were put together,
或者说灵魂先于肉体而存在
or before we were put together with our bodies.
如果把"循环论"和之前的观点结合起来看
If you then combine the argument from recycling and say,
之前存在的零件 之后依然存在
the parts that existed before are going to exist afterwards,
那就说明了如果灵魂之前就存在
it must follow that if the soul existed before,
那么之后它也一定存在
it will exist afterwards as well.
由此我们就证明了灵魂是不朽的
And so we've got the immortality of the soul after all.
但是 事实上
Now, bracket the fact that,
如我之前所说
as I just explained,
我本人并不认为"回忆论"很有说服力
I don't myself find the argument from recollection persuasiv
e.
我认为我们没有理由去相信
I don't think we've got any good reason to believe--
根据柏拉图那些
based on the sort of things that
引起我们注意的理论
Plato is drawing our attention to--
我不觉得我们有充分的理由去相信
I don't think we've got any good reason to believe that
灵魂先于肉体而存在
the soul existed before we were born.
即便我们认为他是对的
But even if we grant him that,
我们也不要过早认为
we shouldn't be so quick to conclude,
根据"回忆论"和
on the basis of combining the argument from recollection
"循环论"的结合
and the argument from recycling,
灵魂在肉体死亡之后会继续存在
汽车影视that the soul will continue to exist after the death of our bodies.
我们举个熟悉的例子
After all, take a more familiar,
一个平常的例子
humdrum example.
汽车在造出来之前不是汽车 对吧
Cars are built out of non-cars, right?
它由引擎 轮胎 和方向盘组装而成
Cars get built out of engines and tires and steering wheels.
但是引擎不是汽车
{\c
方向盘也不是汽车
the steering wheel is not a car.
你是用零件将汽车组装起来的
So you build the car out of its parts.
引擎是先于汽车存在
Now, the engine is a prior-existing part.
那么我们是不是可以做出这样的结论
So can we conclude then that from the fact that--
根据"循环论"
argument from recycling:
零件可以再利用 可以再装配
parts get reused, get rebuilt,
当车坏掉了以后
when cars get destroyed,
零件依然还存在
the parts are still around--
那我们能不能根据"循环论"
can we conclude from the argument from recycling
以及引擎是先于汽车存在的
and the fact that the engine is a prior-existing part
这一个事实
from which the car was built,
来断言说引擎会
that the engine will continue
在汽车毁坏之后依然永远存在呢
to exist forever after the destruction of the car?
很显然 我们不能做出这样的结论
No, obviously you can't conclude that at all.
有时车子毁坏的同时
Sometimes when cars get destroyed the engine
引擎也一起损坏了
gets destroyed right along with it.
当然了
And of course, even if--
即使有时候
in many cases--
引擎在车子毁坏了之后
the engine continues to exist for a while
还是会存在一段时间
after the destruction of the car,
但这不是说引擎是不朽的
it certainly doesn't follow that the engine is immortal,
引擎会永远存在
that it continues to exist forever.
引擎终将分解 变成原子
Engines will eventually decompose and turn back into atoms.
所以仅仅根据引擎是一个
So from the mere fact that the engine was a part
先于汽车存在的零件
that existed before the car existed,
以及后来当汽车被拆解时
and the further fact that when the car breaks down,
它又变成了零件的这
一事实
it decomposes back into parts,
自然不能说明
it certainly doesn't follow that
所有先于汽车存在的零件
all of the parts that existed prior
都会永远存在
to the existence of the car will be around forever.
这是错的
That would just be false.
纵使我们接受了苏格拉底的假设
So even if we were to give Socrates the assumption that--
或者说他的理论
the thesis that--
即使(承认)灵魂先于我们存在
the soul existed before we were put together,
在我们出生前存在
before we were born,
但这仍不能表明
it still wouldn't follow that
当我们的肉体分解后灵魂依旧存在
the soul will continue to exist after we're taken back apart.
灵魂可能迟早会像引擎那样
The soul might eventually decay just like the engine
慢慢地消散
will eventually decay.
我们需要
What we need,
一个真正能说服我们灵魂是不朽的理由
to really become convinced of the immortality of the soul,
不能仅仅依靠假设
is not the mere suggestion,
即使是
even it was--
即使我们确信
even if we were convinced--
灵魂的确是先于肉体存在的
is not the mere suggestion that the soul was around before our birth.
我们需要证明
We need to believe that the soul,
灵魂不同于引擎
unlike an engine,
它不会被毁灭
can't itself be destroyed,
不会分解
can't itself decompose,
不会消亡
can't fall apart.
这才是让使我们信服
That's what we need if we're really going
灵魂是不朽的有力证据
to become convinced of the immortality of the soul.
正如我前面提到的
Now, as I remarked previously,
最不可思议的是
one of the amazing things--
不该说不可思议 应说柏拉图的著作里
not amazing but one of the really attractive things
最引人入胜的是
about Plato's dialogues is,
当你刚要反驳他的观点时 柏拉图本人
you raise an objection and it often seems as though Plato himself,
不管是否已经直白地阐述了这些异议
whether or not he explicitly states the objection,
好似已经知道这些异议了
seems aware of the objection,
因为接下来他一定会对此进行回应
because he'll go on to say something that is responsive to it.
如果你认为
And again, that makes sense
这些对话录是完善你哲学思维的
if you think of these dialogues as a kind of pedagogical tool
学习工具 这就显的很合理
to help you get better at philosophizing.
所以我认为 柏拉图接下来的对话
So the very next argument that Plato turns to can be viewed,
可以看作对这个没表达出来的异议的回应
I think, as responding to this unstated objection--
我在这里说了
well, I stated it,
柏拉图可没有在他的书中这么说
but Plato doesn't state it in the dialogue--
(他没有问)即使灵魂是我们的一零件
the worry that even if the soul was one of the parts,
尽
管灵魂先于肉体而存在
even if the soul was already around before we were born,
我们怎么能证明它不会分解
how do we know it can't come apart?
我们怎么证明它不会被摧毁
How do we know the soul can't be destroyed?
由于我们想知道灵魂到底是不是不朽的
Since what we want to know is whether the soul is immortal,
我们怎么证明它不会消散
how do we know it can't break?
柏拉图的下个观点直接回答了这个疑问
Plato's next argument then tries to deal directly with this worry,
而且这是一个很有趣的观点
and it's a quite interesting argument.
我给它一个
I'll give it another--
新的名称
a new label--
称为 "精简论"
I'll call it the "argument from simplicity."
苏格拉底做了如下的探讨
Socrates turns to a discussion of
什么样的东西会消散
what kinds of things can break
什么样的东西不会消散
{\c
什么样的东西会损毁
what kinds of things can be destroyed,
什么样的东西不会损毁
and what kinds of things can't be destroyed.
他举了些例子
{\c
他想通过研究这些例子
he surveys examples and tries
来总结出一条形而上学的原理
to extract a kind of metaphysical principle from this.
然后 我们就会看到
And then, as we'll see,
他希望运用这条原理使我们信服
he's going to use this principle to convince us--
或者尽量说服我们相信 灵魂是不朽的
or to try to convince us--that the soul is immortal,
是坚不可摧的
it's indestructible.
很多东西都能被摧毁
Well, lots of things can be destroyed.
这有一张纸
Here's a piece of paper.
我能撕坏它 对吧
It can be destroyed [sound of ripping paper] Right?
那么为什么这东西可以被摧毁呢
Why was it that this was the sort of thing that could be destroyed?
最直接的回答就是这张纸是有组成部分的
Well, the straightforward answer is the piece of paper had parts.
损坏它
And in breaking it,
撕掉它
in ripping it,
我其实是把其中的一部分与另一部分撕开
what I literally did was I ripped one part from another.
为了损毁这张纸
To destroy the piece of paper,
我把它的部分分开了
I take its parts apart.
这有一根粉笔
Here's piece of chalk.
它可以被我折断
The piece of chalk can be broken.
我现在在干什么
What am I doing?
我把它的各个部分分开
Taking its parts apart.
可以被摧毁的东西都有"部分"
The kinds of things that can be destroyed have parts.
它们是合成的
They are composite.
它们由各个"部分"组成
They are composed of their parts.
肉体可以被摧毁 因为你可以拿一把刀
Bodies can be destroyed because you can take a sword to it
然后切切切 把它切割成片
and go sweep, sweep, sweep and chop it into pieces.
合成的东西是可以被摧毁的
Composite things can be destroyed.
有"部分"的事物是可以被
发布评论