<span id="vmrlh"></span>
        <optgroup id="vmrlh"><em id="vmrlh"><pre id="vmrlh"></pre></em></optgroup>
        <optgroup id="vmrlh"><li id="vmrlh"></li></optgroup>
      1. 我系長聘副教授Andree Hahmann主編新書出版

        ABOUT THIS BOOK

        一致的思維方式:關于一種哲學美德的研究

        根據康德的觀點,‘一致的思維方式’的原則是“時刻與自己的思考保持一致”(《判斷力批判》, § 40)。正如康德自己強調的,這種旨在始終保持一致性和連貫性的思考是難以實現的。同時,一致性,即不與自己相矛盾,通常被理解為人類理性的一項甚至是基本原則,人類在思想和行動上都致力于此。然而,大多數人不僅很難理解自己假設的后果,而且只有很少數人愿意去考慮這些后果。因此,思考自己假設的后果可以被視為一種特殊的美德,似乎只為少數人保留。即便是那些負責批判性審查論點的人,也往往避免提出不受歡迎的假設后果和讓悖論顯現出來。相反,他們躲在所謂的常識背后,這種常識幾乎不以嚴格的一致性而著稱。

        另一方面,可以在許多被視為經典的哲學作者作品中找到真正‘一致的思維方式’的例子。也許正是這個事實,使他們成為了哲學經典。例如,康德為了道德的緣故,準備將被不公正迫害的人交給迫害者,即使對于同情他的解釋者來說,這也是一個前所未有的挑釁?;舨妓够蛩官e諾莎等人在其哲學作品中嚴格闡述從自己的系統前提不可避免地得出的結論,看起來同樣令人反感?;谶@樣的例子,‘一致的思維方式’可以被認為是哲學家的一種特殊美德。至少,這是我們對哲學的期望——它認真對待自己的基本原則,承認它們有時不愉快的后果,從而為自己和他人提供進一步的,甚至可能是令人震驚的反思材料。

        作為一種哲學美德,‘一致的思考’不僅在哲學本身中證明了其價值,而且在經典哲學文本的解釋和批評中也是如此。往往是解釋者揭示了哲學理論概念中的——假定的或實際的——不一致性。因此,各種哲學關切可以歸納為康德的‘一致的思維方式’關鍵詞下。最后但同樣重要的是,這也強調了研究經典對整個哲學的價值,因為正是從這些經典中,我們可以獲得哲學一致性的最佳例子。畢竟,哲學一致性可以而且必須被學習。在這方面,經典作為模范和幾乎取之不盡的靈感源泉。而且,正因為它們的假設有時會帶來令人恐懼的后果,它們不僅僅作為一種被假定為已克服的哲學教條主義的例子。相反,與之打交道提供了概念工具來質疑我們自己基本哲學態度的自明性,這種態度我們太快就視為理所當然、健康或準自然的,一致而且沒有任何思考禁令,這種態度才能被視為值得哲學的‘思維方式’。

        Consistent Way of Thinking. Studies on a Philosophical Virtue

        According to Kant, the principle of a 'consistent way of thinking' is "to think in agreement with oneself at all times" (Critique of Judgment, § 40). As Kant himself emphasizes, it is undeniable that such thinking, which aims at consistency and coherence throughout, is difficult to achieve. At the same time, unanimity, i.e. not contradicting oneself, is generally understood as one or even the basic principle of human rationality par excellence, to which man is committed both in thought and in action. However, most people not only find it very difficult to understand the consequences of their own assumptions, but only very few are prepared to consider them at all. Thinking through the consequences of one's own assumptions can therefore be seen as a special virtue that seems to be reserved for only a few. And even those whose business it is to critically examine the arguments put forward all too often shy away from drawing the unwelcome consequences of cherished assumptions and allowing the paradoxes to come to light. Instead, they hide behind supposed common sense, which is hardly notorious for strict consistency.

        Examples of a truly 'consistent way of thinking', on the other hand, can be found in numerous philosophical authors who are considered classics. Perhaps it is precisely this fact that has made them philosophical classics. The fact that Kant, for example, is prepared to hand over the unjustly persecuted to his persecutors for the sake of morality is an unheard-of provocation, even for interpreters who sympathize with him. Many of the consistent conclusions of Hobbes or Spinoza, who rigorously set out in their philosophical works the results that inevitably follow from their own systematic presuppositions, seem equally objectionable. On the basis of such examples, a 'consistent way of thinking' can be assumed to be a particular virtue of the philosopher(s). For that, at least, is what we expect from philosophizing - that it takes the principles on which it is based seriously, acknowledges their sometimes unpleasant consequences and thus provides itself and others with material for further, perhaps even outrageous, reflection.

        Consistent thinking' as a philosophical virtue proves its value not only in philosophizing itself, but also in the interpretation and criticism of classical philosophical texts. It is often the interpreters who uncover the - supposed or actual - lack of consistency in a philosophical theoretical concept. Various philosophical concerns can therefore be subsumed under the Kantian keyword of a 'consistent way of thinking'. Last but not least, this also underlines the value of studying the classics for philosophy as a whole, because it is precisely from these classics that we can obtain the best examples of philosophical consistency. After all, philosophical consistency can and must be learned. In this respect, the classics serve as a model and an almost inexhaustible source of inspiration. Moreover, precisely because of the sometimes frightening consequences that result from their assumptions, they do not merely serve as examples of a supposedly overcome philosophical dogmatism. On the contrary, dealing with them provides the conceptual means to question the self-evidence of our own basic philosophical attitude, which all too quickly appears to us as self-evident, healthy or quasi-natural, consistent and without any prohibitions on thinking, which alone can be considered a 'way of thinking' worthy of philosophy.

        AUTHOR/EDITOR

        Andree Hahmann, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China;

        Stefan Klingner, Georg August University G?ttingen, Germany.


        欧美日韩中文字幕视频,欧美日韩中文字幕一区二区高清,欧美日韩专区在线观看,欧美日韩综合aⅴ,欧美日韩综合第一页
            <span id="vmrlh"></span>
            <optgroup id="vmrlh"><em id="vmrlh"><pre id="vmrlh"></pre></em></optgroup>
            <optgroup id="vmrlh"><li id="vmrlh"></li></optgroup>