Be Your Own Person —Be a Philosopher 做自己——成為哲學家

C. H.古德溫

The immediate reaction of some sharp， informed readers with a particular philosophical background to the heading of this article will be a denial of any necessary， logical relationship between becoming an autonomous person and being a philosopher. They will say philosophy is concerned with the meaning of meaning， and not with providing a framework of beliefs and values by which to live.

As one professional philosopher has put it， “Philosophy… is above all concerned with the clarification of the concepts and propositions through which our experience and activities are intelligible…philosophy is not a speculative super-science that tries to answer questions about some ultimate reality; it is not the pursuit of moral knowledge; it is not the integrator of all human understanding into a unified view of man， God and the universe…”

The heading of this article， however， is based upon the popular understanding of the word “philosophy” as indicating a persons basic attitudes towards life in general. W.F. Deedes1 can speak of “the private philosophy that we all have tucked away inside us somewhere”; to which we can turn for inner strength in times of great stress. It can also be used to denote an approach towards a particular activity. Thus the wise， old deputy-head of the first primary school in which I taught advised me， “The best thing you can do in this profession is to make up your own philosophy and stick to it.” The wise teacher， therefore， is his own person with his own philosophy of education！ He has his own distinctive way of educating children based on what he thinks is of value.

The more I pondered the words of the deputy-head the more I realized they implied three important things about the nature of philosophy. They implied philosophy was： a highly personal， distinctive activity; a testimony to the kind of person we are since it expresses our basic values and beliefs; a consciously articulated and coherent system of beliefs and values informing and guiding our conduct as individuals.

The academic philosophers I was conversant with at the time claimed to stand within the historic tradition of the great philosophers of the past which they seemed to date back to Socrates. One of them said， “What distinguishes the philosopher is the type of second-order questions which he asks. These are basically the same questions asked by Socrates at the beginning—the questions ‘What do you mean？ and ‘How do you know？” I was familiar with Platos accounts of Socrates philosophical activity in his dialogues The Republic and The Phaedrus， and extended my knowledge to include some of Platos other works. To my relief I discovered that the three characteristics of philosophy I had identified in the deputy-heads advice were also present in Socrates.

Philosophy was a highly distinctive activity for Socrates. He became dissatisfied with the science of his day because it failed to throw light on what he chiefly wanted to know by its insistence on explaining everything mechanistically. So， says one scholar， Socrates， “turned his back on all such speculations and resolved to work out a new method for himself.”

Socrates philosophy revealed what kind of person he was; Socrates was a deeply religious man. He devised his own method of philosophical enquiry in response to the divine oracle of Delphi which declared him to be the wisest man in Greece. Philosophy became for Socrates the means of discovering his own ignorance. As he said in his defence to the citizens of Athens， “the truth probably is， citizens， that it is God who is really wise， and that he means in this oracle to say that human wisdom is worth little or nothing.”

Philosophy informed and guided the conduct of Socrates. He also said in his defence to the citizens of Athens， “the greatest good to man is to discourse daily about virtue and those other matters about which you have heard me speak and examine both myself and others， and that a life without examination is not worth living.”

Is it legitimate to claim that one can be ones own person， and that the most rewarding way of attaining independent selfhood is through the practice of philosophy？ Is it possible to be a philosopher at all without proper training in the subject？ R.G. Collingwood2 said， “Anyone who thinks， and is determined to let nothing stop him from thinking is philosopher…” Other professional philosophers disagree. It is not enough to be a thoughtful person. All too often， when people first begin to reflect upon their experience， their thoughts are confused， contradictory and inconsistent. This is because they tend to pursue their reflections without much method and without a clear understanding of what constitutes a valid chain of reasoning.

One can play football without having to be a professional footballer. One can think without having a knowledge of logic. It may be uninformed， undisciplined， and emotionally clouded by ones prejudices but even professional philosophers with all their sophisticated methods of analysis and reasoning despair of reaching final， incontrovertible conclusions. A. J. Ayer once wrote， “In philosophy one never quite knows where one is， one never quite knows when one has got a problem solved—whether one has got the problem properly posed. This I think makes one despair at times， but then one goes on， and perhaps one gets something one thinks may be right， and then one feels better again.”

One requires certain moral characteristics to become a philosopher which are more important than philosophical techniques. The most important is the courage to accept responsibility for taking ones life into ones own hands. This involves the need to form and reform ones self-consciousness in response to new knowledge and new experiences. The philosopher has the courage to accept the anxiety involved in forsaking where necessary ideas which are familiar landmarks of his or her identity. One needs to be honest with oneself in facing up to unpleasant discoveries otherwise one will distort ones reflections to suit ones wishes.

So， be your own person—be a philosopher！

一些敏銳、見多識廣、有特定哲學背景的讀者對這篇文章題目的即時反應將會是，否認在成為一個自主的人和成為哲學家之間存在任何必然的邏輯關系。他們會說，哲學關注的是意義中的意義，而不是提供一套指導我們生存的信念和價值觀。

正如一位職業哲學家說的那樣：“哲學……首先是對概念和命題的澄清，這些概念可以解讀我們的經驗和活動……哲學不是一門推理的超級科學，試圖回答關于一些終極的現實問題;它不是對道德知識的追求;不是把所有的人類知識整合為對人類、上帝和宇宙的統一觀點……”

然而，文章的標題是基于對“哲學”這個詞的普遍理解之上，表明人們大體上對待生活的基本態度。W.F.迪茲提及我們所有人藏在心里某處的私人哲學，當我們處于巨大壓力下的時候，我們會從中找到內心的力量。它也可以用來表示對某一特定行動的處理方法。因此，我曾任教的第一所小學的那位睿智的老副校長曾對我提出忠告說：“在這行里你能做的最好的事情就是構建你自己的哲學并持之以恒。”因此，睿智的老師是做自己，有自己的教育哲學！他基于自己尊崇的理念，用自己獨特的方式教育孩子。

我越琢磨副校長說的話，就越意識到它們說明了關于哲學本質三樣重要的東西。它們說明了哲學是：高度個人化、與眾不同的活動;證明我們是什么樣的人，因為它表達了我們基本的價值觀和信念;一套有意識地清晰表述出來的信念和價值觀體系，影響并指導我們作為個體的行為。

當時我熟悉的學院哲學家聲稱他們會堅持過去那些偉大哲學家的歷史傳統，他們似乎認為這一傳統可追溯到蘇格拉底。其中一個哲學家說：“哲學家的不同之處在于他提出的那種二階問題。這些問題基本跟蘇格拉底最初提出的問題一樣——‘你是什么意思？和‘你是怎么知道的？。”我對柏拉圖在《理想國》和《斐多篇》對話中關于蘇格拉底的哲學活動的記錄非常熟悉，并擴充了我的知識，了解了柏拉圖的其他著作。令我感到欣慰的是，我發現，蘊含在副校長的忠告里面的這三種哲學特征也包含在蘇格拉底的對話中。

在蘇格拉底看來，哲學是一種非常獨特的活動。他對當時的科學很不滿意，因為它堅持機械地解釋一切，沒有闡明他主要想知道的事情。因此，一位學者說，蘇格拉底“對這些推測都置之不理，而決心為自己想出一種新的方法”。

蘇格拉底的哲學反映了他是一個什么樣的人;他是一個篤信宗教的人。他想出了自己的探究哲學的方法，作為對聲稱他是希臘最有智慧的人的德爾菲神諭的回應。對蘇格拉底來說，哲學是發現自己的無知的手段。正如他在辯護時對雅典公民說：“公民們，事實是，真正有智慧的是上帝，在這個神諭中他的意思是說，人類的智慧沒有什么價值或根本沒有價值。”

哲學影響和指導蘇格拉底的行為。他在對雅典公民發表自辯時說：“對人最大的善是每天談論美德和你們聽我說過的其他事情，審視自我和他人，未經審視的生活不值得過。”

我們可以做自己，以及獲得獨立自我的最有價值的方式是通過哲學實踐，這種說法是否有道理呢？有沒有可能完全沒有經過適當的學科訓練而成為一位哲學家？R.G.科林伍德說：“任何去思考、決心不讓任何事情阻止他思考的人都是哲學家……”其他的專業哲學家則不同意。做一個有思想的人是不夠的。通常，當人們第一次開始反思自己的經歷時，他們的思維是混亂的、自相矛盾的和前后不一的。這是因為他們沒有什么方法來進行反思，也不清楚什么是有效的連串推理。

我們可以踢球，而不必成為職業足球運動員;我們也可以思考，而不必具有邏輯知識。這樣看起來似乎知識不足、缺乏訓練以及在情感上也被自己的偏見所混淆，但是，即使是專業哲學家運用所有成熟的分析方法和推理，也不指望得出最終的、無可辯駁的結論。A.J.艾耶爾曾寫道：“在哲學中，我們永遠不知道自己在哪里，永遠不知道什么時候解決了一個問題——是否正確地提出了問題。我想，這一點有時讓人絕望。但接下來，他繼續下去，就有可能會得出他認為也許正確的某種結論，然后感覺又好一些。”

成為一位哲學家需要具備某些比哲學方法更重要的道德特征。而最重要的是有勇氣承擔掌控自己生命的責任。這需要形成和重塑我們的自我意識，從而對新知識和新體驗作出反應。哲學家有勇氣接受焦慮，這種焦慮因某些時刻必須摒棄一些觀念而致，而那些觀念就是他或她為人熟知的身份標志。面對令人不快的發現，我們必須對自己誠實，否則，我們就會歪曲自己的思考以滿足自己的意愿。

所以，做你自己——成為一位哲學家！? ? ? ? ? ? ? □