20120726

思與智

牟宗三在〈哲學的用處〉一文(收入牟著《時代與感受》)裏說哲學的用處是「智潤思」,這三個字是他從《大學》的「富潤屋,德潤身」變化出來的,我的理解與牟老不盡相同,亦沒有打算闡述或批評他的看法,以下只是借他這個三字來發揮一下。

「思」這裏指哲學思考,不是天馬行空、不著邊際地玄想,而是慎思明辨、循序漸進、深入探索和嘗試解決一些宇宙和人生最根本和最重要的問題。「智」可指智力或智慧,假如指的是智力,哲學的作用應該是「思潤智」;假如指的是智慧,便可以說「智潤思」,但這不是哲學的作用,而是哲學的自律。

先說「思潤智」。哲學思考能夠「滋潤」智力,幫助智力的發展和發揮,因為哲學思考就像智力的舉重,問題越抽象複雜,思考得越深入細緻,智力要舉的就越重;加重不能心急,但只要有恆心和耐力,久而久之,能舉的重量始終會逐漸增加。除了直接訓練智力,哲學思考還可以「滋潤」智力運用的成果,例如科學和數學,令人對這些成果有一個更高層次或旁觀者清的了解(那就是科學哲學和數學哲學了);甚至哲學本身,作為智力的成果,也可以得到這種「滋潤」(那就是哲學的哲學了)。

哲學思考,尤其是由小問題做起、注重條分縷析和嚴謹論證的英美哲學,一不小心,便能入不能出,流於捨本逐末、見樹不見林、視工具(例如邏輯)為目的、捧技匠為名家;因此,研究哲學者時刻不可或忘哲學其中一個最重要的目的是智慧 --- 關乎宇宙和人生的智慧。雖然智慧不能純粹靠哲學思考得來,但哲學思考可以幫助人得到智慧,而以智慧為目的,又可以反過來約束哲學思考,令哲學思考免於過份繁瑣枯燥,這可算是「智潤思」;得到智慧的哲學家,其智慧自然會流注到他的哲學思考中,豐富之,潤澤之,那就當然是「智潤思」了。

(偶讀牟老的文章,記起年前和一位也是教哲學的好友談到分析哲學的種種限制,思緒一起不能止,因而成文。)

26 則留言:

  1. 分析哲學有其限,那其他呢?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 其他哲學?當然有限制,遲些或會寫幾篇討論一下。

      刪除
  2. 個人感受上,基本上甚有同感,不過只是個人感受而已。

    但愈接觸哲學,就愈發現哲學也只是一門普通學科,只是一種practise,與社會學形同,每人修習的目的各異。一些哲學家的研究在我們看來可能繁瑣枯燥(事實上我時常感到一些人的研究繁瑣枯燥),也有一些可能如數學家一樣,只顧邏輯運算,更有一些可能純粹將之作為社會運動的工具,但也不能說他們方向是錯,只是人各有志罷了。甚至說,因為哲學家各有個人目的,哲學才顯得更多姿多彩。所以,我反而不喜歡一些人把哲學看得太崇高,而傾向將之當成一門普通的學術,只是別人是化學系、經濟系,而我是哲學系,本質上我不認為有太大分別。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我也沒有把哲學看得特別崇高。

      刪除
    2. 我說把哲學看得特別崇高的,主要是說一些接觸過哲學的人,居然會說一些哲學救世、全人類都應讀哲學實現真理、「我是半個世外高人」之類的話,其實也只是順帶一提而已。這些人我卻意外地接觸不少。

      刪除
  3. 我認為「思潤智」是比較更合乎現實規律,因為如果沒有思考或不去思考,除非天生就有智慧,而「智潤思」就似乎是那樣的一種情況。即可能是需要有些先決條件例如要有「天才」,才可以實現「智潤思」。
    還有一個可能性就是以前的文字是從右向左讀的,所以「智潤思」其實是「思潤智」,是排版印刷的人搞錯了....

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 補充之前的想法:
      在一般情況下「思潤智」是比較更合乎現實規律,但是如果說「智潤思」是在談「哲學的用處」這個前提之下說的,或者也可以理解為是有了哲學這個「智慧」,則對思考問題會有更大裨益。或者這也是屬於「哲學的用處」吧。

      刪除
    2. 「智潤思」一語乃牟宗三所作,書是直排的,沒有搞錯左右的問題。其實我只是借他這三個字講自己的想法。

      刪除
  4. 什麼是一些宇宙和人生最根本和最重要的問題?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 以下是隨便舉的例:人有沒有自由意志?因果是怎樣的一種關係?有沒有神?為何要做好人?一個公義的社會應符合甚麼條件?有沒有客觀的道德真理?怎樣活才活得有意義?甚麼是愛?自我是由甚麼構成或決定的?信念和證據應該有甚麼關係?死亡值得害怕嗎?

      刪除
    2. 人有沒有自由意志?因果是怎樣的一種關係?有沒有神?為何要做好人?一個公義的社會應符合甚麼條件?有沒有客觀的道德真理?自我是由甚麼構成或決定的?信念和證據應該有甚麼關係?

      這些都是分析哲學有在研究的問題

      我不太關心自由意志,假若我沒有自由意志,那我一切思考行動都是給安排了,我再討論甚麼也不會有意義。自由意志我只會當成反駁苦罪問題的自由意志辯護的工具。
      我也不太關心自我的問題,反正我現在正正是自我這個生物現象的進行式。我偏好從生物學和心理學去了解自我的成因。

      至於活得有意義和甚麼是愛我卻認為是很個人的問題,應自己在生活中找答案。

      刪除
    3. //以下是隨便舉的例:人有沒有自由意志?因果是怎樣的一種關係?有沒有神?為何要做好人?一個公義的社會應符合甚麼條件?有沒有客觀的道德真理?怎樣活才活得有意義?甚麼是愛?自我是由甚麼構成或決定的?信念和證據應該有甚麼關係?死亡值得害怕嗎?//

      想請教王Sir:

      人有沒有自由意志?
      當人的手碰到一個很燙的物體時會「不由自主」地把手缩開,這是一種無須經過思考的動作,這是否屬於人的自由意志?

      有沒有神?
      如果說「存在」是「有」的意思,存在於現實世界中的事物是被稱為「有」,那麼存在於人的思維裡的信仰也是一種存在,應該也可以被稱為「有」,例如說某人「有」某一信仰。
      如果那人是信神的話,那麼神就「有」存在在那個人的思維裡,
      所以,神就是屬於信則有,不信則無的東西,那到底算是有還是無?

      刪除
    4. //人有沒有自由意志?//

      - 我相信有,但我沒有論證能反駁到 determinismfatalism

      //當人的手碰到一個很燙的物體時會「不由自主」地把手缩開,這是一種無須經過思考的動作,這是否屬於人的自由意志?//

      - Reflex action 不是出自意志,當然不算是自由意志決定的行為。

      //神就是屬於信則有,不信則無的東西,那到底算是有還是無?//

      - 如果第三句中的「有」「無」和頭兩句中的意思相同,那答案已包含在頭兩句中,否則第三句問的問題要獨立於頭兩句來回答。

      刪除
    5. 謝謝王Sir的解釋。
      如果要獨立於頭兩句來回答的話,那麼有沒有神?

      刪除
    6. 我只能答:沒有理由(justifying reasons)相信有。

      刪除
  5. 「智潤思」係中國哲學的方法,跟英美哲學不同,重點不在於由小問題做起、注重條分縷析和嚴謹論證,而在於運用玄思直接把握洞見,反正智慧最終不能純粹靠哲學思考得來。最重要係格局,係氣勢,係宏觀,係大鈔票,而非小零錢。

    中國哲學從一開始就是生命之學問,從生命出發滋養學問,指導學問。中國哲學家不會是學究佬,只會是生命佬。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 朱子寫的註解書,牟宗三的《名家與荀子》、《心體與性體》、《從陸象山到劉蕺山》等疏理前人著述的書,甚至徐復觀短短的一篇〈孟子知言養氣章試釋〉,其中涉及的分析和論證,不是「生命佬」三字能表明的。

      刪除
  6. //人有沒有自由意志?因果是怎樣的一種關係?有沒有神?為何要做好人?一個公義的社會應符合甚麼條件?有沒有客觀的道德真理?怎樣活才活得有意義?甚麼是愛?自我是由甚麼構成或決定的?信念和證據應該有甚麼關係?死亡值得害怕嗎?//
    Wong, let me talk some nonsense into you. Yes, it's nonsense, it's not a typo.
    Wong's comments will likely be: That's not philosophy, you oversimplify, you answer a question with a question, you must be joking... Well, I won't deny them.
    //人有沒有自由意志?// 沒有, when you (a man?) see a naked, pretty woman, you can't help having an (some bodily change...) 有, when you refrain from drinking more than a serving in front of bottles of good wine.

    //因果是怎樣的一種關係?// a) More than just correlation. b) Random. c)因-果, not 果-因. d) It's only an illusion. e) Not logical. f) When a parent says to his/her kid, "because I say so!"

    //有沒有神?// Have to ask 有沒有我 first. 有我-有神, 沒有我-沒有神, 無我-無神. (A mistake. It should be 無我-Buddhism.) What's the point? 我=神!!

    //為何要做好人?// Forgot the condition 好人難做. So, it is 好人難做,為何要做好人? But one should first ask 人難做,為何要做人? Or just 為何要做人?
    But can we ask 好人不難做,為何要做好人? Of course, but it seems trivial.

    //一個公義的社會應符合甚麼條件?// a) At least 2 people? Definitions of 社會 need it. b) there's some interactions between them people, or one can affect another in some ways, or...(fill in something here yourself.) c) they need to agree on what 公義 is. d) if they can't agree on the matter, someone can just say, "more research is needed because one should first ask this question: If 人沒有自由意志, can there be 公義. Meeting is adjourned."

    //有沒有客觀的道德真理?// I will skip this one because even 道德經 doesn't answer that. (LOL)
    Anyway, 客觀, that's hard to get. It sounds to me 客觀 and 道德 don't live well with each other.

    //怎樣活才活得有意義?// a) First, have to answer 我是不是活著. b) Second, is there such a thing 有意義? c)Are there any relations between 活 and 有意義? If so, are they 因果? If so, we are back to the question about 因果. d) Is '有意義'客觀 or not? If not, does that mean one can do whatever he deems 有意義 and claims 我活得有意義? e) "怎樣活才活得有意義" seems to me that it assumes that living in a manner based on 生存是有意義 is better than living in a manner based on 生存是沒有意義. To most people that is true. But to some people, that isn't. "生存有沒有意義" or "whether 有意義 is better than 沒有意義" is very subjective. If one can decide on what is 有意義 for himself, he can (first) decide on "生存有沒有意義" or "whether 有意義 is better than 沒有意義" for himself too. If the answer is no, he doesn't even have to decide on what 有意義 is for himself.

    //甚麼是愛? // Something built on the oversimplified description (hormones, chemicals, etc) I once made.
    ***Maybe a better question is:
    What is LOVE like if we don't have or can't produce those hormones or chemicals in our bodies? Would this LOVE without hormones better than "love" with hormones between dogs?

    //自我是由甚麼構成或決定的?// Big Bang, elementary particles, elements, molecules..., organic matters..., biology, bones, brain, senses, nutrition, upbringing, psychology, socialization process, background (like socioeconomic), education, relations, thought process... too much to cover. Need to be lazy here: 無我.
    Conclusion: Philosophers just can't lay back, relax, and be lazy. Yes? No? My bias?

    //信念和證據應該有甚麼關係?// What? If 信念 is (blind) faith, 關係: Negative correlation! Inverse proportion! Zero sum! If 信念 is or based on confidence (I mean something like confidence level in statistics, which is in turn based on some evidence or data) then....

    //死亡值得害怕嗎?// 不值得, because you don't make any money--值?-- (or gain anything) by being 害怕. But one may want to answer this question first: 死亡值得嗎? That depends on whether you have life insurance and how much it is worth in case you have it. (Don't like my money analogy, use something else instead.) Now, the question is if one 值得死亡(抵死!), he 值得害怕死亡嗎? Or, if one 不值得死亡, he 值得害怕死亡嗎?

    --zpdrmn (Asking: Does a philosopher need some nonsense?)

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. One more Q: If one 抵死, should he 死抵下去做人, even though he 漫無意義地生存, 不做好人, 沒有道德, 不理公義, and 不知愛為何物? Is he like a dog? Or worse? (Worse relative to what?) Or better? (What? You mean dogs are better than us?)

      刪除
  7. I'm still 'naively' proud of working in the philosophy discipline, because I tend to believe that the percentage of exciting and fundamental research in philosophy is higher than the percentage in most other disciplines. I also often complain that a great proportion of philosophical research is dumb and trivial, but I suspect that the same is true of almost any discipline.

    Many disciplines in humanities and social sciences are even worse: a lot of work in those disciplines is not just superficial (or even not just unclear), but intellectually inferior, as a result of 'trained incapacity'.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. There are so many studies which can be called philosophy. I believe that, as long as one is satisfied with the methodology of philosophical thinking, one can always find some areas which one would feel interesting. Sometimes I am complained by others that my philosophical research is dumb and trivial too, but I also find that the complainer's research is dumb and trivial, so I think that it is just a matter of personal interest. (I had done a research in philosophy of religion about an argument for the non-existence of God. Someone complained that philosophy of religion is something like "arguing about whether a plane can fly". In his view, it is senseless to philosophically argue about whether a concrete object exists. Perhaps you would agree with him~)

      I find a question which seems interesting: Would the cultural background of a philosopher influence his/her philosophical interests? E.g. philosophers from culture A tend to be more interested in metaphysics, and philosophers from culture B would tend to be more interested in metaethics.

      刪除
  8. Although sometimes it is controversial whether a particular philosophical issue is significant or trivial, there are clear cases of significant philosophical research and clear cases of trivial philosophical research. It is too quick to conclude that this is just a personal taste.

    By the way, I don't think arguing against the existence of God is trivial or boring.

    ----Normativity

    回覆刪除
  9. 智力竟然可以鍛煉﹐呢個說法真係好新奇!
    如果一個弱智人士﹐真是可以透過學哲學﹐而令IQ提升﹐最後變成一個正常人﹐咁就真係犀飛利囉~~(噴!)

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 文少,
      Normal people 學哲學 may better their 智力; 弱智人士學哲學變得更弱智. Both ways one can't still be or 變成一個正常人!!
      --zpdrmn

      刪除