On the Philosophy of Chisholm
【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学， 外国哲学， 2014， 博士
【摘要】 罗德里克M·齐硕姆(Roderick M. Chisholm)被誉为“美国哲学史上的康德”,是20世纪最重要的哲学思想家之一。其研究涉及到认识论、形而上学、伦理学、语言哲学和心灵哲学等领域,他的著作构成了一个宏大的哲学体系,他被认为是当代哲学的奠基人之一。齐硕姆是20世纪美国知识论的领导者,他的认识论思想几乎是美国乃至西方认识论的一个时代标志,研究齐硕姆思想是研究当代西方知识论的必经之路。本文对他的认识论,形而上学,伦理学思想方面的主要思想观点进行了阐述和分析,并且对他的内在主义的认识论和能动性理论提出了质疑和看法。齐硕姆的认识论是内在主义和基础主义的。受布伦塔诺和现象主义者的影响,齐硕姆的哲学强调意识和事物显现方式,他将“自我呈现”命题作为经验的基本命题,它是直接明显的,而“公理性”的命题是先验的基本命题,每个人的知识都是以这两种命题为基础的。一个人在任何时候所拥有的知识都是一个结构,其中各个部分相互连结、相互支持,而整个结构是建立在知识的基础之上。他提出了一个由九个步骤组成的认知原理,通过他的认知原理,我们可以看到我们是怎样可以拥有关于外部世界的知识的。齐硕姆的部分学的本质主义(mereological essentialism)理论认为,我们必须区分严格的哲学意义上的真部分(proper part)和松散的日常意义上的非真部分,作为对象的真部分对于该对象而言是本质性的,在这个整体存在的每一个可能世界中都作为它的部分存在。在提修斯之船难题中,他指出在某个时刻存在的部分的组合是“存在者本身(ens per se)",它依自身的力量而存在,而提修斯之船是一个“依存物(ens per alio)",它凭借其他的事物存在而存在,因此在严格的和哲学的意义上,T1不等同于T3。齐硕姆的能动性理论有两个基本概念,即试图做(undertaking)和因果促成(causal contribution)。他认为,每个行为中都包含了这个行为人的试图做,这是他的行为理论中的一个基本概念。根据他的能动性理论,如果某个人实施了一个行为,那么这个行为中必然有一个事件是由行为人直接引起的。并且,行为人在因果上促成了他的试图做,而他试图做某事情又在因果上促成了某事情的发生。本文提出了对齐硕姆的内在主义认识论和他的能动性理论的一些质疑。首先他的认识论原理在认识论特征和形而上学特征上存在着困难。齐硕姆的区分自我呈现特征的方式是值得怀疑的,因为我们的内省能力是否与他的认识论原理所认为的是同样可靠的是值得怀疑的,因此他认为最初可以得到辨明的信念事实上是值得怀疑的。他的关于辩明的观念同时是主观的也是客观的,但是,主观上有说服力的不是客观上可以保证的,恶魔假设和缸中之脑假设表明能满足我们自身的最深刻的认识论的标准的认识事实上有可能完全是错误的。其次,他的能动性理论认为,如果某个行为人对他的某个行为是负责的,那么这个行为人的试图做是直接地由这个行为人引起的,但是他的能动性理论不能解释是什么引起某个行为人在某个时候自由地试图做。他的因果促成概念认为行为人在因果上促成了他的试图做并且他试图做某事情在因果上促成了某事情的发生,但是事件和行为的理由之间事实上并不存在必然的因果联系,仅仅因果概念是不能够解释为什么行为人会引起他的试图做,也不能解释他的理由怎样影响他引起那个试图做。
【Abstract】 Roderick Chisholm is known as the "American Kant" in history of philosophy, he is one of the most important philosophical thinkers of the twentieth Century,his research involves the fields of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind, his works formed a huge system of philosophy.Chisholm is epistemology leader in the twentieth century in American, his thought of epistemology is almost a sign of the times of epistemology of America and even the whole Europe, Studying the Chisholm’s Philosophy is the only way which must be passed of the study of contemporary western theory of knowledge. In this paper, the main aspects of his thought of epistemology, metaphysics and ethics aspectsare analyzed, and his internalism epistemology and initiative theory are questioned.Chisholm’s epistemology possess the characteristic of internalism and fundamentalism. Influenced by the doctrine of Brentano and phenomenon, Chisholm’s philosophy emphasizes the consciousness and the way that things were presented, he recognize "self-presentation" proposition as the basic proposition of experience, it is directly obvious, but the basic proposition of a priori is "axiom" proposition, the knowledge of every one is based on the two kinds of propositions. Knowledge that any one possessed at any time is a structure, in which all parts are mutually connected, mutual support, but the whole structure is built on the foundation of knowledge. He proposed a set of epistemic principle consisting of nine steps, through these epistemic principle, we can see how we can have knowledge about the outside world.Mereological essentialism proposition that we must distinguish between the proper part in a philosophical sense and the part in a loose sense, the proper part as the object is essential for this object, existed certainly in every possible world that the whole existed. Aiming at the problem of Theseus boat, he pointed out that combination of parts existed at one time is ens per se, its existence depends on its own strength, and the ship of Theseus is a ens per alio, its existence depends on other things, therefore, in the strict and philosophical sense, T1is not equal to T3.Chisholm’s initiative theory has two basic concepts, namely, undertaking and causal contribution) and causality. He thinks, each behaviors include this engent’s undertaking, this is a basic concept in his behavior theory According to his initiative theory, if a person has done a action, then there must be an event that is caused directly by the behavior. Also, people causally contribute to his undertaking, and he undertaking something causally contributed to the occurrence of something.This paper presents some questions for his internalism epistemology and initiative theory. First, his epistemology has difficulty in epistemology and metaphysics principle. Chisholm’s way in which distinguish "self-presentation" property is questionable, because that our Introspective ability and his understanding in the epistemic principle is the same reliable is questionable, so he thought that the belief justified originally is indeed doubtful. His ideas about justification is both subjective and objective, however, what is justified Subjectively cannot be guaranteed objectively, hypothesis of the devil and brain-in-a-vat show thatknowledge satisfied most profound standard may in fact be at all wrong.Secondly, his initiative theory insist that, if a person is responsible for his action, then the agevt’s undertaking is directly caused by the agent, but his initiative theory have been unable to explain why a agent at one time caused him to undertaking freely. His nothions of causal contribution insist that agent contribute causally to his undertaking and he undertaking something contribute causally some things to happen, but there is no causal link between events and the reasons of action, only the causal concept is not able to explain why agent will cause his undertaking, also unable to account for how his reasons influenced him to cause that undertaking.