what is philosophy要全面的``用英语来回答这个问题

what is philosophy要全面的``用英语来回答这个问题
what is philosophy
要全面的``用英语来回答这个问题

what is philosophy要全面的``用英语来回答这个问题
哲学是什么：问的是哲学的定义、规定
什么是哲学：问的是哲学的内涵
★★★以下的论述请仔细阅读（特别是★部分）
科学哲学是从哲学角度考察科学的一门学科.它以科学活动和科学理论为研究对象,探讨科学的本质、科学知识的获得和检验、科学的逻辑结构等有关科学认识论和科学方法论的基本问题.
哲学是什么?
这是一个问题,一个既简单又复杂的问题.
我们说它简单是因为它应该是哲学这门学科最基本的规定,但凡学习哲学的人都要从这个问题开始,如果一个学习或研究哲学的人说他不知道哲学是什么,那似乎是一件很可笑很滑稽很不可思议的事情.然而,这的确是事实.我们说它复杂就是因为迄今为止它仍然是一个问题,而且很可能永远是一个问题.
换言之,“哲学是什么”这个问题至今尚未有终极的答案.
对于初学者来说,“哲学是什么”这个问题是很好解决的,翻翻哲学辞典或者大百科全书就行了,虽然他们并不一定真正理解那上面说的是什么.但是我们这些号称研究哲学的人,或者说自认为对哲学“略知一二”的人,却不能这样做,因为那并不能解决我们心中的疑问.说来令人难以置信,也令我们感到汗颜,虽然哲学这门学科已经存在了几千年,但是“哲学是什么”这个问题却至今尚未有定论.由于这个问题太大太难了,即使是以此作为书名的大部头著作业已汗牛充栋数不胜数,所以我们在此并不想（实际上也不可能）解决“哲学是什么”的问题,而只是想把这个问题本身当作一个问题,看一看会有什么答案.
★★★
从问题本身看,“哲学是什么”可以有两种表达方式：“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”.
表面上这两种表达方式所说的是一回事,都是关于哲学的基本规定或定义,似乎无论把问题中的“什么”放在后面还是放在前面,并没有什么根本上的区别.在西方语言中一说到“哲学是什么”或“什么是哲学”,其实就是一句话,例如英语中的“what is philosophy”,德语中的“Was ist die Philosophie”.虽然当我们把它们翻译成中文的时候,既可以译作“哲学是什么”,也可以译作“什么是哲学”,不过通常并没有要突出两者之间有什么区别的意思,但是实际上在这两种表达方式之间存在着某种差别,而且这一差别不仅仅是翻译的方式问题,而且是表述的含义问题.不要以为我们是在玩儿文字游戏,因为不同的表达方式的确可以有不同的意义.
★★★“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”之间究竟有什么区别?
当我们追问某种东西“是什么”的时候,通常在逻辑上问的是这种东西的“本质”或“本性”,亦即规定它“是什么”的“定义”.然而所谓“定义”所表述的既可以是曾经如此或现在如此的实际状态,也可以是将来如此或应该如此的理想状态,前者说的是“是如何”,后者讲的则是“应如何”,一个是“实然”,一个是“应然”.在一般情况下,一门学科的基本规定是没有这种区别的,或者说上述两方面是统一的,但是哲学却不一般.由于哲学家们在“哲学是什么”这个问题上始终未能达成普遍的共识,使得我们只知道以往人们关于哲学的不同规定,而无法确定关于哲学的一般规定,于是在“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”之间就出现了差别.在某种意义上说,★★★“哲学是什么”问的是作为历史事实的哲学过去和现在“是什么”,而“什么是哲学”问的则是究竟什么样的哲学才能够被我们称之为哲学,亦即作为普遍意义的哲学“是什么”.
当我们以这两种不同的方式追问哲学的时候,似乎显得对哲学有点儿不太恭敬,因为★★★这意味着在“哲学过去和现在是什么”与“哲学应该是什么”之间存在着差别,把这个问题问到底就很可能得出这样的结论：无论哲学过去或者现在是什么样子,它有可能还不是它应该所是的样子.
有人可能会说,对于一门已经存在了几千年之久的学科是不应该产生这样的疑问的,而且哲学也可以有一般的规定,如“世界观”和“方法论”等等.从理论上讲的确是这样,但是事实上却不尽然,因为哲学是一门与众不同、十分独特的学问.不仅如此,对于一门学科而言,存在的时间长短其实并不重要,关键要看它是否已成定型.我们之所以不会向其他科学提出这样的质疑,原因就在于它们早就定型了,无论它们的内容、方法甚至对象的范围等等发生了怎样的变化,一门科学的定义通常是不变的.哲学就不同了.因为哲学与任何一门科学都不一样,我们简直无法将它看作是科学.
尽管说哲学不是科学很难为人们所接受,对于以哲学为职业的人尤其如此,然而只要有一点儿哲学史知识的人都知道,这实在是一个具有历史意义的事实.2000多年来,哲学家们几乎在所有的哲学问题都争论不休,甚至在哲学的对象问题上也难有定论.虽然我们都希望哲学是科学,都认为哲学应该是科学,但是它的的确确并不具备一门科学知识应该具有的基本特征.因而即使从这个角度看,哲学也还不是它应该所是的样子.
为什么说哲学不是一般意义上的科学?
原因有很多,而其中最明显的原因是,哲学不像科学那样是一个知识积累的过程,或者说,哲学留给我们的不是知识,而是许许多多的问题.譬如就数学而论,通常我们认为只有一门数学,其他各式各样的数学都是数学的分支或不同的发展阶段.但是我们却不能说历史上只有一门哲学,其他哲学都是哲学的分支或发展阶段.黑格尔曾经主张历史上只有一种哲学,其他哲学不过是哲学发展的不同阶段,现在很少有人持这种庸俗进化论的观点了,因为它起码与事实不相符合.无可否认,哲学也有自身的发展过程,然而这个发展过程并不是一个知识积累的过程.历史上的哲学思想的确有某种传承关系,但是在大多数哲学问题上它们的基本观点却是很难调和的.不恰当地说,自然科学类似某种知识积累的“直线运动”,我们可以不管科学的历史,只要把它积淀下来的成果拿过来使用就行了.哲学却不一样,它更像是一种“圆周运动”,围绕着一些永恒无解的难题,尝试着一种又一种不同的解答方式.所以尽管在哲学家们之间的确存在着继承和发展的关系,但是每个哲学家的理论都有其不可替代的价值,而这种价值并不在于它的知识内容,而在于它提供了什么样的解决问题的独特方式.显而易见,今天的人们在知识的占有上是古人无法比拟的,任何一个医学院的学生所具备的知识都要比医学始祖希波克拉底“先进”得多,然而即使是研究哲学的人也极少有人能够达到柏拉图或者亚里士多德的思想水平,虽然他们所表述的知识内容早已过时了,故而哲学很难用“进步”来衡量.
那么,★★★把“哲学是什么”这个问题区分为“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”这样两种不同的问题形式究竟有什么意义?
如果这种区别是有意义的,那么我们除了知道历史上不同的哲学思想之外,究竟能否把握所谓一般意义上的哲学或者说哲学的普遍规定?
首先,上述区别给我们的启发是,哲学的一般规定与科学的一般规定是不同的,它具有更广泛的“宽容性”和“历史性”.关于哲学的规定应该体现它的研究领域和范围（这种领域和范围亦有其不确定性）,与此同时亦不应该企图以一种哲学思想代替全部哲学,除非这种哲学思想确实可以含盖过去、现在乃至将来所有哲学（倘若如此,它也就不是“一种”哲学了）.因为哲学的问题和对象根源于人类要求超越自身的有限性而通达无限之自由境界的最高理想,就人类有理性而言他一定会产生这样的理想,但是就人类的有限性而言他又不可能现实地实现这一理想,虽然他无法实现这一理想但他又不可能不追求这一理想,哲学就产生于这个“悖论”之中.由于在有限与无限、现实与理想、此岸与彼岸、暂时与永恒之间横着一道不可逾越的鸿沟,而我们命中注定要千方百计地去尝试各种方式以图超越这一界限,所以真正的哲学问题不仅是没有终极的答案,而且永远也不会过时,因而哲学就表现为过去、现在和将来人们面对共同的哲学问题而采取的不同的解答方式.由此可见,哲学不可能存在于“一种”哲学之中,而只能存在于所有哲学之中,因为任何一种哲学都只不过代表着哲学问题的一种解答方式,而不可能代表哲学问题的所有解答方式.我们之所以坚持在“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”之间作出区别,就是为了说明所谓哲学归根结底乃是哲学史这个道理.这也就是说,谁要想给哲学下一个定义,他就必须把过去、现在乃至将来所有可能的哲学都考虑在内,我们不能按照给科学下定义的方式来规定哲学,因为一旦哲学有了这样的科学的定义,哲学也就不再是哲学了.
我们并没有正面回答哲学“是什么”的问题,或许我们永远也不可能解决这个问题.在有些人看来,哲学虽然存在了2000多年,但是时至今日仍然面临着这样的困境,这实在令人感到悲哀.但是从另一个角度看,这未尝不是哲学的幸运.因为它意味着哲学而且只有哲学是一门真正开放的、永远没有定型的学科,而这也许正是哲学的魅力所在.当然,即使我们永远也无法解决“哲学是什么”这个问题,★★★了解“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”之间存在着差别仍然是有意义的,因为那是两种不同的思维方式.不过虽然它们是不同的两个问题,实际上它们之间又是有联系的.这倒不是我们有意卖弄“辩证法”,事实就是如此.谁也不可能在没有哲学的时候凭空想象“什么是哲学”,只有当我们对哲学的实际状况感到不甚满意时才会提出这样的问题.
在某种意义上说,我们研究哲学史,就是要★★★通过“哲学是什么”来解决“什么是哲学”的问题,即通过研究历史上的哲学来解答哲学究竟应该是什么的疑问.
如此说来,研究和学习哲学史,从来都不是与过时的历史打交道,其本身就具有“现实意义”.
学习哲学史就是学习哲学史上哲学家们的思想,因而可以看作是我们的思想“思想”哲学家们的思想,也可看作是思想与思想之间的“对话”.由于哲学家们的思想保存在他们的著作之中,学习哲学史也就是“读书”,所以与哲学家们的“对话”通常是通过“读书”来实现的.然而,尽管历史上的哲学家们斯人已逝,我们读他们的“书”却不是读死书.虽然这些书的内容大多已经过时了,但是哲学家们解决问题的方式却没有也永远不会过时,因为哲学问题并没有过时,这些问题不仅是他们面临的难题,而且也是我们面临的难题,甚至可以说是人类将永远面临的难题.既然哲学问题没有终极的答案,那么任何一种解答方式都不可能取代其他的解答方式,也不可能为其他的解答方式所取代,所有一切的解答方式都有其各自独特的意义和价值,它们为后人提供了各式各样可供选择的可能方式.因此,对于学习哲学史的人来说,学习哲学史无非是将人类精神所思想过的东西再思想一遍,把人类精神已经走过的思想之路再走一遍,然后选择或者开创我们自己的路.
由此可见,我们学习哲学史并不是站在哲学史之外,在某种意义上说,前人的思想就构成了我们现存在的组成部分.我们之所以说研究和学习哲学史本身就具有“现实意义”,原因就在于此：当我们与哲学家们进行思想之间的“对话”的时候,他们的思想“复活”了.这并不是说,哲学家的思想“死了”,是我们的“对话”使之“复活”了.其实,历史上的哲学思想原本就是“活的”,因为它们构成了哲学不可缺少的组成部分,因而它们的“复活”并不是“复古”.换言之,哲学家们的思想既是历史性的,同时又超越了历史,在任何时候任何情况下都具有现实性.所以,哲学史从来就不是什么死材料的堆积,而是一种活生生的思想律动.
就哲学是哲学史,学习哲学就是与哲学家们进行思想“对话”而论,我们与哲学家们之间的思想对话并不是“单向性”的受动活动,而是“双向性”的互动活动,这种思想与思想的对话类似现代解释学所说的“视界交融”.
哲学家们的思想保存在他们的著作之中,读他们的书需要“理解”和“解释”,而“理解”和“解释”的过程在某种程度上也是“再创造”的过程.以往传统的解释理论追求知识的客观性,将理解和解释看作是本文原著之纯粹的再现.但是现代解释学却告诉我们,任何人都不可能完全再现所谓客观存在的文本,因为古人有古人的“视界”,我们有我们的“视界”,换句话说,古人与我们处在不同的历史、文化、社会、个人环境等等的背景之下,我们既不可能完完全全地将古人的视界“复制”到现代来,也不可能彻底摆脱掉自己的视界,纯粹沉浸在古人的视界之中.
从这个意义上说,理解和解释实际上是不同视界之间的碰撞和交融,而且正是因为如此,人类文化才有可能进步和发展.
因此,学习哲学史的过程并不是被动地接受知识,而是富于创造性的“视界交融”,亦即我们与以往的哲学家们就大家共同关心的哲学问题进行思想之间“对话”的过程.正是在这种思想对话的过程中,我们由研究“哲学是什么”而进一步追问“什么是哲学”.
总而言之,一切研究和学习哲学的人,都应该追问这两个问题：“哲学是什么”与“什么是哲学”.因为,哲学就存在于这种追问活动之中.
这不是我所得出的理论,因为我没有那么高的才华,只是从网上搜到的,希望能有用.
下面这段是金山翻译出来的,可能有些地方不是很正确.引用:http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/939821.html?si=2
Science philosophy is from a course of the philosophy angle investigation science.It take science activity and science orieses as the research object, the essence, scientific knowledge that inquiries into science acquires and examines, the logic structure of science etc. basic problem of the relevant science epistemology and science methodology.
What is the philosophy?This is a problem, a since simple again complicated problem.We say that it in brief is because of it should
Should be the this course most basic provision in philosophy, but the persons of any study philosophy all want from this problem beginning, if a study or research the person of the philosophy says that he does not know what philosophy is, that is a ridiculous and very funny and very unimaginable affair apparently.However, this is really fact.We say that its complications be because up to the present it is still a problem, and is a problem forever very probably.
In other words, the problem " philosophy is what" didn't°yet have the ultimate end answer up to now.
Say for the raw recruit, the problem " philosophy is what" likes to resolve very much of, turn over the philosophy thesaurus or big 100
The section whole book went, although they combine the uncertain real comprehension that is up what what to say is.But our se persons who allege to study the philosophy, or say from think to the persons who the philosophy" know a little of it", but can't do like this, because that can't solve our question in the heart also.Say to make the person hard to place the letter, also make us feel deelpy ashamed, although this course of philosophy has already existed for several thousand years, the problem " philosophy is what" didn't°yet have the hard conclusion up to now.Because this problem is too greatly too difficult, even with this a work that is the book title already the sweat cow 充栋 counts the extremely number, so we do not want( actually also impossible) to resolve the problem of" what philosophy is" here, but just want to regard as a problem to this problem, have a look and there will be what answer.
See from the problem," what philosophy is" can have two kinds of expression methods:" Philosophy is what" with" what is
Philosophy".What superficial these two kinds of expression methods say is one thing, is all basic provision concerning philosophy or definitions, seem to regardless problem in of" what" put to still put in the behind fore face, have no what at root differentiation.In western language on making reference to" what philosophy is" or" what is a philosophy", is a words in fact, for example" the what is philosophy" in English," the Was ist die Philosophie" in German.Although when we translate they into Chinese, since can translate to make" what philosophy is", can also translate to make" what is a philosophy", however usually didn't be outstanding both have what distinct meaning, exist a certain difference between these two kinds of expression methods actually, and this difference not only is the way problem of the translation only, but also is the meaning problem that the form say.Do not think we is to have fun the writing game, because the different expression method really can have the different meaning.
What differentiation does" philosophy is what" have with of" what is a philosophy" actually?
When we cross-examine a certain thing" is what", usually at logical what to ask is" essence" of this kind of thing
Or" man's natural character", that is rule" definition" of its" is what".However the so-called" definition" says the form of since can be ever such or the thus actual appearance of now, can also be a future such or should thus ideal appearance, what the former say is" is how", the latter speak then" what if", an is" solid however", an is" should however".Under the condition of general, the basic provision of a course is to has no this kind of differentiation of, or say that above-mentioned both side is united, but different sort of philosophy.Because the philosophers can not reach the widespread consensus always on the problem " philosophy is what", make us know the different provision concerning philosophy of former people only, but can't make sure the general provision concerning philosophy, hence appeared the difference with" what is a philosophy" its at" what philosophy is".Say on a certain meaning, what" what philosophy is" ask is a philosophy that is the history fact past and" is what" of now, but" what is a philosophy" ask then actually what kind of philosophy then can be enough called it as the philosophy by us, that is be the philosophy" is what" of the widespread meaning.
When we cross-examine the philosophy with these two kinds of different ways, seeming to be to have a little the son to the philosophy apparently not that polite, because of
For this mean at" philosophy past and what now is" with" philosophy should be what" it exist the difference, inquire about the bottom to this problem very possible get a such conclusion:Regardless philosophy past or now is what appearance, it probably not just it should yes appearance.
Someone may say, shouldn't produce such question for aly have already existed several thousand years of long course being
Of, and the philosophy can also have the general provision, such as" global view" and" methodology" etc.s.Speak from the theories is really thus, but in fact are not all, because the philosophy is an out of the ordinary, very special knowledge.Not only such, for a course but speech, the existent time length is of no account in fact and also, the key wants to see whether it have already become the already set or not.The reason that we will not put forward toward other sciences to query thus, the reason lie in them early already set, regardless their contents, method is even the scope etc. of the object took place how of variety, a definition of science is usually constant.Philosophy dissimilarity.Because the philosophy is all different with any science, we simply can't see it to make is science.
Though say that the philosophy is not science very difficult is accept by people, for the person that regards the philosophy as the occupation particularly such, however only
Persons who to have the some history of philosophy knowledge all know, this is really a fact that has the history meaning.More than 2000 in the last yearses, the philosophers are endless debatable almost in all philosophy problems, even is also difficult to have the hard conclusion on the object problem of the philosophy.Although we all hope that philosophy is science, all think that the philosophy should be science, it does not have basic characteristic that a scientific knowledge should have really.As a result even see from this angle, philosophy also not just it should yes appearance.
Why to say that the philosophy does not is science of the general meaning?The reason have a lot of, but among them the most obvious reason is, philosophy
Be unlike science is a process of knowledge backlog so, or say, the philosophy stay to our is not a knowledge, but allow much more problems.Like for mathematics but theories, usually we think to only have a mathematics, other various mathematics is all mathematic branch or different development stages.But we can't say that the history onlies have a philosophy up, other philosophies are all philosophic branches or the development stages.Hegelian had ever laid claim to the history to only have a kind of philosophy up, other philosophy however is the different stage of the philosophy development, few someone of now held the standpoint of this kind of vulgar Theory of Evolution, because it agreed with to match with fact not at least.Can have no recognize, the philosophy also has the development process of the oneself, however this development process is not a process of knowledge backlog.The historical philosophy thought really is a certain spread to accept the relation, but on most philosophy problems their basic standpoint but is very difficult in harmony with.Don't say fittingly, the natural science" straight line sport" of the similar and a certain knowledge backlog, we can ignore the history of science, as long as brought over here the usage to the result that it accumulate the 淀 down to go.Philosophy but different, it even seems a kind of" circumference sport", around some eternities have no the hard nut to crack of solution, trying the one and other different solution method.So though at the philosophers of really exist to inherit and the relation for develop, but the theorieses of each philosopher contain its value that can't act for, but this kind of value does not lie in its knowledge contents, but lie in its providing what kind of problem-solving special way.Obviously, the people of today is the ancients and can't compare to on the occupancy of knowledge of, the knowledge that the student of the whichever medical college have wants to compare a carat of the medical science first ancestor bottom the " forerunner" have to have another, however even is a person who studies the philosophy also very few someone can attain Plato or second in many virtuous thought levels of private, although they is already dated the knowledge contents that the form say, hence the philosophy is very difficult to measure with the " progress".
So, classified into" what philosophy is" to the problem " philosophy is what" is thus with" what is a philosophy" two
Grow the different problem form to have actually what meaning?If this kind of differentiation is mean