本课程将为你介绍现代哲学中的一些研究领域。在每个模块中，将由不同的哲学家为你讲述其专业领域内最重要的疑问和问题。 首先，我们来了解什么是哲学，哲学有哪些独特的目标与方法以及哲学与其他学科有何不同？之后，我们会在课程剩余的时间内向你简要介绍各种哲学领域的总体情况。你要学习的主题包括：知识论，其中将讨论囊括我们对世界和我们自身的了解以及如何获取这些知识；科学哲学，我们将在此模块中调查科学研究和实践中的基础概念问题；心灵哲学，我们将在此模块中询问物质拥有心灵的意义以及应如何理解和诠释心灵；道德哲学，我们将在此模块中探究道德判断和反应的本质，看它们是旨在得出客观的道德真相，还是仅作为个人或文化偏好，以及，形而上学，我们将在此模块中思考有关事实本质的一些基础概念问题。 本慕课 (MOOC) 课程由爱丁堡大学 Eidyn 研究中心领导设计。为配合“哲学导论”的授课，我们为大家倾力推荐一本由 Routledge 出版社出版的名为 "Philosophy for Everyone" 的配套书籍。这本“哲学导论”的课程配套书籍是由爱丁堡大学哲学小组为满足慕课 (MOOC) 学生要求而编写的。"Philosophy for Everyone"一书中包含清晰易懂的章节、章节摘要、词汇表、探究问题、补充阅读推荐以及在线资源指南。 This is a translated version. To join the original English version, Please visit this page https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy
里德的主张
Loading...
来自 The University of Edinburgh 的课程
哲学导论（中文版）
166 个评分
从本节课中
你应该相信你听到的东西吗？- Allan Hazlett
我们对周围世界的理解大多基于他人的观点。 难道这意味着我们相信他人的证词是有依据的吗？ 在本模块中，我们将探讨两位伟大的苏格兰启蒙哲学家对这个问题的解答，他们分别是大卫·休谟 (1711 - 1776) 和托马斯·里德 (1710 - 1796)。 休谟和里德在证词方面存在的争议代表了两种世界观之间的冲突，而这种冲突将会延续数百年：一种是怀疑且通常是世俗的世界观，总是对一切持怀疑态度（以休谟为代表），一种是保守且通常是宗教的世界观，以捍卫常识为己任（以里德为代表）。
与讲师见面
Dr. Dave WardLecturer in Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Professor Duncan PritchardProfessor of Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Professor Michela MassimiFull Professor
Philosophy
Dr. Suilin LavelleLecturer in Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Dr. Matthew ChrismanReader in Philosophy
Philosophy
Dr. Allan Hazlett
Dr. Alasdair RichmondDr.
Philosophy
So we can now see that Hume and
Reid had really completely different pictures of how human testimony works.
So, for read there's an innate hard wired principle that makes us
trust other people.
But for Hume, we have to have evidence that other people
are likely to be right before we can trust them.
So we've got innate trust in testimony on Reid's side.
We've gotta have independent evidence that the person testifying is likely to be
right on Hume's side.
So which of these two pictures is right?
Which one should we accept?
Here's why Reid thought his picture was the right one.
He asked us to imagine small children and
think about the extent to which they trust the testimony of other people.
And he points out that it looks like the principle of credulity is strongest
in small children.
They're very much disposed to trust the testimony of other people.
They'll believe whatever you tell them.
And Reid thought this was incompatible with Hume's picture of testimony.
So here's what Reid said.
If credulity were the effect of reasoning and experience as Hume claims, it must
grow up and gather strength, in the same proportion as reason and experience do.
But, if it is the gift of Nature, it will be strongest in children, and limited and
restrained by experience.
And the most superficial view of human life shows that the last is really
the case and not the first.
So in other words, if Hume's picture were right the principle of credulity would be
weakest in children because they don't yet
have any experience of the reliability of other people's testimony.
But in fact the principals really strongest in children
who have no experience at all of the reliability of other people.
They're the most trusting where adults are skeptical and less trusting.
This the opposite of what you'd expect if humans picture were right so
rather than being based on experience he re-concludes our trust must be based
a gift of nature, as he puts it.
Here's a way of setting out his argument.
We'll look at what main assumptions involved are.
First he assumes the principle of credulity is strongest in children.
Second, he points out that if our trust in testimony were based on experience as Hume
claims it is, it would be weakest in children.
And on that basis he concludes the principle of credulity is innate and
not based on experience.
And there's a bit of a wrinkle here, you might have noticed this because it looks
like Reid is talking about what children in fact do.
he's talking about the fact that they do trust other people's testimony.
Whereas it looks like Hume was talking about what people ought to do.
They ought not trust testimony without evidence
that other people are likely to be right.
But I think we can appreciate Reid's point here if we take him to be saying
look children trust other people's testimony,
they don't have any evidence that other people are likely to be right.
And it doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that.
It's kind of counter intuitive to say that children aught not be so trusting.
In fact Reid claims if we did abide by hume's principles, then he says no
proposition that is uttered in discourse would be believed and such distrust and
incredulity would deprive us of the greatest benefits of society.
And place us in a worse condition than that of the savages.
Scary stuff, if we were as skeptical and
doubting as Hume suggests that we should be.
So, I think that's the big dispute between Hume and Reid on the matter of testimony.
Is trusting other people something innate, as Reid argues, or do we need evidence of
the reliability of testimony before we're going to trust it as Hume claims.
An interesting thing is that Hume and Reid also seem to disagree
on the reliability of human testimony and the extent to which testimony really is
a reliable source of information, about how truthful people really are.
So in addition to the principle of credulity,
Reid also said that there's a principle of veracity.
He defined it as a propensity to speak the truth so as to convey our real sentiments.
And he went on to say that lying is doing violence to our nature.
So just as we're naturally trusting creatures, Reid says,
we're also naturally honest creatures.
So Hume would've challenged this.
He would've challenged this idea that we're hardwired for honesty.
And the way he would've challenged it is by appealing to all the different
kind of situations in which human beings end up testifying falsely.
Three kinds of examples that you can find it possess say on miracles.
How we first points out that people often have a motive to lie
when they have an interest in what they affirm because there are advantages
he says to starting an imposture among an ignorant people.
So think here of the kind of lies that politicians tell.
Second he says, human beings are prone to believe the tales of travelers
because human beings generally find the feeling of surprise and wonder agreeable.
So when someone tells you this crazy story from some far way land,
you enjoy that feeling of surprise and wonder and
it inclines towards believing what they're saying.
And in Hume's day there were surprising stories coming into Europe from all over
the world, a lot of them completely inaccurate.
Third, Hume/s says that human beings are prone to testify, to asset things,
regardless of whether they have good evidence for what they are saying.
Because of, quote,
the pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting of propagating it.
And of being the first reporters of it.
Gossip and rumor, this is how they spread.
We enjoy telling other people news,
even when we don't have very good evidence for it.
So what we can see is that human read have a very different pictures of how we
relate to one another, when it comes to our belief and opinions.
And how we ought to relate to one another when it comes to our beliefs and opinions.
So for Reid, there's this innate hard wired principle of credulity and
this innate hard wired principle of veracity.
It means that we're naturally trusting and naturally honest creatures.
Testimony of others is a natural, an indispensable, source of information.
Where as for Hume the picture's much more problematic.
Testimony isn't always reliable and we can only trust testimony we've
got evidence that the person testifying is likely to be right.
So in a really important sense for
Hume, we're always left on our own when it comes to forming beliefs and opinions.
