We push those questions arising from our contact to the immediate surrounding reality to an infinite extent and seek some reasonable, coherent, and consistent answers, then call this pursuit Philosophy. But the pushing to the infinite is simply wrong; infiniteness is incomprehensible, and bound to lead to contradictions, as is clearly demonstrated in mathematics and cosmology, in which infiniteness is tactfully circumambulated around.
Philosophy is indeed futile. The only thing that can benefit from it is eloquence. Philosophy is but the exploit of the ambiguities of our languages.
如果大家前提一致，又没有人故意在其中搅混水，最终应该是没有争论的。哲学中的许多争论根本就是道不同不相为谋和鸡对鸭讲。
论辩的技术是可以仔细学习的（这本书的一个好处就是专门辟出篇幅指导写哲学和辩论，在正文中也可以看出来比较强调这一点），各家的结论大家看看就好了，好的哲学中有警句，有优美的散文；至于尝试用枯燥的形式力图言之凿凿，尼采说得好"The will to a system is a lack of integrity... a subtle corruption, a philosopher trying to appear more stupid than he really is."。
这本书是按主题安排内容的，这和我读过的其他导论按哲学史安排不同。好处在于把西方哲学中的一些主题中来源于其文化和语言中隐含的假设的诡辩暴露得更明显了。关于神的证明和我的想法在读书笔记中已经讲明了。还有两个例子我印象比较深刻：
书中不断追问一个不受任何其他外部影响，也不受自己的物质身体影响的真的"我"；这不是扯淡吗，还是佛教高明，不仅承认一切发生（每个人的每个选择）都是有内在外在原因（因缘），而且根本否认有"我"，或者说是灵魂或自性。这是受语言中"self"和基督教中自由意志误导的结果。
还有关于身心问题，假设一个别于物质的脑存在的意识，胡搅蛮缠说身体感受不了痛觉只有意识能够直接感受，这无疑也是受到了语言和文化影响而留下的一些顽固的后遗症。
That you can imagine something only makes it plausible but not probable. By the same token, that you cannot imagine something would not suffice to deny its probability. Propositions do not lose authenticity because they sound odd; ingenious ideas cannot be refuted on grounds of being intolerable.
本站仅提供存储服务，所有内容均由用户发布，如发现有害或侵权内容，请
点击举报。
