搜索
我们之前已经讨论过We'vebeenworkingourway柏拉图对灵魂不朽的论证throughPlato'sargumentsfortheimmortalityofthesoul.上节课我花了些时间AndlasttimeIspentafairbitoftimeworking来反驳他的论证throughobjectionsto,不是我们讲的最后一个论证notquitethelastargumentwe'regoingtolookat,而是倒数第二个论证butthepenultimateargument,柏拉图试图论证灵魂的单一性inwhichPlatotriestoargueforthesimplicityofthesoul.你们还记得这一系列观点就是Thesetofconnectedideas,you'llrecall,werethese:柏拉图想说明thatPlatowantstosuggestthat要摧毁某样东西就得先令它分崩离析{\c从本质上来说todestroysomethingisto摧毁某样东西就是要让它支离破碎basicallysortoftakeitspartsapart.如果他能让大家相信灵魂是单一的Ifhecouldonlyconvinceusthatthesoulwassimple,那他就能下灵魂不可摧毁这样的结论itwouldfollowthatitwasindestructibleand,从而实现灵魂不朽hence,immortal.柏拉图问到有什么证据能Heasks,what'sourevidence证明某些东西是不可摧毁的呢forsomethingsbeingindestructible?哪些东西是单一的呢Whatkindsofthingsaresimple?他说这些东西就是Well,theseare--不可见的东西hethengoesontoclaim--invisiblethings,不发生变化的东西thingsthatdon'tchange.毕竟Afterall,所谓变化就是事物各部分的重组changingisamatteroftherearrangementoftheparts.因此如果某个东西可以变化Andso,ifsomethingcanchange,那它就不单一itcan'tbesimple.它也许就可以被摧毁Maybeitcouldbedestroyed.但如果我们相信Butifwecouldbecomeconvincedthat灵魂不是复合物thesoulwasnotcomposite,如果它是那种不能变化的东西ifitwassomethingthatcouldn'tchange,那么它就是单一的thenitwouldsimple.那么也许灵魂就不可摧毁Perhapsthenitwouldindestructible.然后他继续说Andthenhegoesontosuggestthat灵魂的不可见性就是theinvisibilityofthesoulisevidence它不能变化的证据forit'sbeingchangeless,进而推出它是单一的所以它不可摧毁andhencesimple,andhenceindestructible.这就是我们上节课讨论过的论证Sothat'stheargumentweworkedthroughlasttime.我还花时间给大家讲了AndIspentafairbitoftimesuggesting如果仔细推敲柏拉图对不可见下的定义thatifyoupindownpreciselywhatPlatomeansbyinvisible,这条论证实际上并不成立theargumentdoesn'tactuallygothrough.在讲新课之前Beforeleavingthatargument,我想再对这个论证做几点评论thereareacoupleofextraremarksIwanttomakeaboutit.首先我们也许不应该这么快就接受First,weprobablyshouldn'thavebeensoquick灵魂不变towanttobuyintothesuggestionthat这种说法thesoulischangeless.毕竟如果你仔细想想Afterall,ifyouthinkaboutit,至少从表面上看itseemsthatatleastonthefaceofit灵魂确实是变化的thesouldoesindeedchange.比如你有时觉得天很热{\c有时又觉得天很冷onanotherdayyoubelievethatit'scold.有时你觉得Ononedayyoubelievethat某人是个好人{\c过几天你就会认为onthenextdayyoubelievethat这人卑鄙无耻soandsoisameanperson.你想要学钢琴Youdesiretolearnthepiano,但过两天你就又不想学了thenextdayyougiveuponthatdesire.你的信念目标计划欲望Yourbeliefs,yourgoals,yourintentions,yourdesires--这些东西全都在不断变化thesethingsareallconstantlychanging.所以至少从表面上看Andso,atleastonthefaceofit,我们似乎有充分的理由说灵魂itlooksasthoughwemightwellwanttosaythesoul--假如我们确实相信有灵魂的话ifwedobelievetherearesouls--因为灵魂包括思想和信念thesoulischangingaswell,所以灵魂也是在不断变化的intermsofwhatthoughtsandbeliefsit'shousing.所以我们一开始就应该怀疑Soweshouldhavebeenskeptical持如下观点的论证inthefirstplaceofanyargumentthatsaid,即根据灵魂的不可见性basedontheinvisibilityofthesoul,可以推断它是不变的wecanconcludethatit'schangeless.事实上灵魂并非一成不变的Itdoesn'tseemtobeinfactchangeless.更近一步说我们应该Furthermore,weshouldbe,或者我们至少应该oratleastwemightwellbe,对灵魂的单一性持怀疑态度skepticaloftheclaimthatthesoulissimple.实际上柏拉图自己在其他对话中Indeed,Platohimself,inotherdialogues,也驳斥了灵魂的单一性arguesagainstthesimplicityofthesoul.这并不意味着他在其他对话中就是对的Now,thatdoesn'tmeanhe'srightintheotherdialogues,但至少表明我们不应对这条假设butatleastsuggeststhatweshouldn'tbesoreadytoassume确信无疑thatsortofpositioniscorrect.在著名的《理想国》一书中InTheRepublic,famously,柏拉图一直在论证Platogoesontoargue灵魂至少可以分为三个不同部分thatthesoulhasatleastthreedifferentparts.分别是理性部分掌管推理{\c精神部分这部分有点像意志{\c还有一部分与欲望有关there'sapartthathastodowithappetite,像食欲性欲这类欲望等等desiresforfood,drink,sex,whathaveyou.柏拉图在其他场合说过灵魂一点也不单一Platoelsewherearguesthesoulisnotsimpleatall.也许这并不令人惊讶Soperhapsitshouldn'tshockus柏拉图根据灵魂不变thattheargumenthe'ssketchinghere本质是灵魂不可见forthesimplicityofthesoulbasedonthechangeless,推出灵魂的单一性invisiblenatureofthesoul--也许我们看到这个论证说不通perhapsitshouldn'tshockus也不该太过惊讶thatthatargumentdoesn'tsucceedafterall.最后尽管我之前替Finally,althoughIgavePlato,柏拉图做了这样的假设previously,theassumptionthat只要我们能相信灵魂的单一性ifonlywecouldestablishthesimplicityofthesoul,那么就能得到灵魂不可毁灭的结论itwouldfollowthatsoulwasindestructible--毕竟你不能把灵魂撕成碎片afterall,youcouldn'tbreakasoul如果它压根就没有碎片bytearingitspiecesapartifitdidn'thavepieces,没有组成部分ifitdidn'thaveparts--尽管如此我还是想说一下nonetheless,Ijustwanttoregisterthethoughtthat单一的东西不可摧毁这一说法其实说不通it'snotactuallyobviousthatsimplescan'tbedestroyed.显然他们不能被某种Well,theyclearlycan'tbedestroyed特定的方法摧毁bytheparticularmethodofdestruction比方说将其拆分thatinvolvestakingthemapart.如果它们没有组成部分Iftheydon'thaveparts,那你就无法拆分它们youcan'ttakethemapart.但话虽如此Butforallthat,从概念上来说itstillseemsconceptuallypossibleforasimple还是可以通过以下方法来摧毁单一物的tobedestroyedinthefollowingsense:可以让它根本就没有存在过itgoesoutofexistence.毕竟单一物最初Afterall,wheredidthesimplescomefrom都是从哪来的呢inthefirstplace?至少从逻辑角度来说Well,atleastfromalogicalpointofview,想象在某时某刻一个给定的单一物itseemsasthoughthere'snodifficultyinimagining根本不存在这看上去不难thatatonepointagivensimpledidn'texist在下个时刻它突然就冒出来了andthenatthenextpointitpoppedintoexistence.这是如何发生的呢Well,howdidthathappen?也许上帝会说MaybeGodsaid--上帝在创世之初说GodsaysatthebeginningofGenesis,要有光Lettherebelight.那可能他还说了SomaybeHesays,要有单一物Lettherebesimples.在某个给定的时间点单一物并不存在{\c但下一刻它就出现了thenextmomenttheywere.可能再过一会上帝又说Well,afterawhilemaybeGodsays,让简单物湮灭吧Letthesimplesnolongerexist.那么这一刻它存在{\c下一刻它就消失了thenextmoment,theynolongerexist.似乎这还蛮说得通的Seemsasthoughthatideamakessense,因此即使我们