知识老化是可悲的，知识老化的人遇到新的知识不是好奇地学习，而是下意识的反对，就是愚昧了。 比如说，满清人士没有见过火车那是无知或者知识老化，如果看见火车来了极力反对，就是愚昧，不只是反对，还骂街的，就是草包了。然而，我们知道，当年火车进入中国，是有很多满清大臣反对的，说把马给吓着了。 对现代哲学感兴趣的，建议去美国某大学哲学系听一堂课，看看哲学教授们（除了那些研究哲学史的）在研究些什么。不想去听课的，也可以在网上查查人家的论文。下面我简单介绍一下一篇50多年前的重要哲学论文，英文（翻译）标题比较具有刺激性《 The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language 》（《通过对语言的逻辑分析废掉形而上学》）。该论文开场写道： 【 The development of modern logic has made it possible to give a new and sharper answer to the question of the validity and justification of metaphysics. The researches of applied logic or the theory of knowledge, which aim at clarifying the cognitive content of scientific statements and thereby the meanings of the terms that occur in the statements, by means of logical analysis, lead to a positive and to a negative result. The positive result is worked out in the domain of empirical science; the various concepts of the various branches of science are clarified; their formal-logical and epistemological connections are made explicit. In the domain of metaphysics, including all philosophy of value and normative theory, logical analysis yields the negative result that the alleged statements in this domain are entirely meaningless. Therewith aradicaleliminationof metaphysics is attained, which was not yet possible from the earlier anti-metaphysical standpoints.】 由于其重要性，我简单翻译如下： 【现代逻辑的发展使我们对形而上学的有效性与合理性给出新的准确的答案成为可能。应用逻辑与知识理论的研究,... 得出了肯定或者否定的答案。肯定性的结果表现在实证科学领域... 在形而上学领域，包括所有价值与规范哲学，逻辑分析得出了否定的结果，那就是这些哲学的命题完全毫无意义。这样，形而上学被完全废除，这在之前是未能做到的】。 该论文接下来解释到”没有意义”不是说形而上学式哲学错误。一个学说有三种可能，right, wrong , 但还有一种可能，借用泡利的词汇就是“not even wrong"。metaphysics正是第三种, meaningless。运用现代逻辑工具，论文把各大哲学给检阅了一遍，就像用现代科学手段揭穿巫师的魔术。论文中有一段对哲学中的”本质”一词进行了剖析，这一招就将传统哲学基本废掉。另一段里，则把黑格尔的什么纯有、纯无的皇帝新衣给扒了下来---当成语义错误给简单处理了。 论文对笛卡尔的“我思故我在” (I think, therefore I am) 分析如下： 【We notice at once two essential logical mistakes: The first lies in the conclusion "I am." The verb "to be" is undoubtedly meant in the sense of existence here; for a copula cannot be used without predicate; indeed, Descartes' "I am" has always been interpreted in this sense . But in that case this sentence violates the above-mentioned logical rule that existence can be predicated only in conjunction with a predicate, not in conjunction with a name (subject, proper name).... The second error lies in the transition from "I think" to "I exist." If from the statement "P( a)" ("a has the property P") an existential statement is to be deduced then the latter can assert existence only with respect to the predicate P, not with respect to the subject a of the premise.... What follows from "I think" is not "I am" but "there exists some thing that thinks." 】 方枪枪贴出的对”我思故我在”的解释似乎符合上面批判中得出的逻辑分析结果，显然这是在分析哲学对笛卡尔的这个命题进行解剖批驳之后采取的辩解，却并非笛卡尔本人的原意。正如上面引用的论文所说，笛卡尔的原文非常清楚，是在讲自己的存在，而不是自己思维的存在。参见下面附文。 附：笛卡尔上下文（摘自我与帘卷西风的讨论） 其上下文【Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.】 兜了N个圈子。我耐着性子读完之后，他说的是，一个人可以怀疑见到的一切外部事物都不过是梦境一般虚幻，但却不能怀疑自己本身的真实存在。但他对这一点的“证明”却是一个循环逻辑。 而且有一个明显的问题，他对什么叫“真实”或者”存在”没有进行定义。 总之，遇到这种所谓哲学，你只要揪住其关键名词的定义不放就可以揭穿。
标签: 下意识
