A. The importance of Locke's views to modern philosophical thought
B. How Descartes' view of knowledge influenced trends in Western philosophy
C. How two philosophers viewed foundational knowledge claims
D. The difference between foundationalism and methodological doubt
我的笔记 编辑笔记
查看听力原文
NARRATOR:Listen to part of a lecture in a philosophy class.
MALE PROFESSOR:OK,... so, uh, to continue our discussion...when philosophers talk about the basis of knowledge, they don't mean the source of information about any particular subject-they mean how we know what we know.Let's start with one philosophical view: foundationalism.
Foundationalism is the view that our "knowledge claims"-what we think we know, that is-they need to have a base.Um, think of knowledge as a house. You need a solid foundation on which to build your house, and if you have a strong foundation, your house is more likely to be solid.Well, foundationalists think the same thing is true of knowledge-if you have a solid base for your knowledge claims, then your knowledge structure is more likely to be strong... valid... true.First you need some good foundational knowledge claims, and then the rest of the knowledge claims can be based on these.Now, as to what kinds of knowledge claims are foundational, well, that's where this gets particularly interesting... in that it sorta depends which philosopher you ask.
Take John Locke, for instance.Locke's viewpoint, essentially, was that when humans are born, their minds are like blank slates. That is, we don't have any kind of knowledge when we're born.We get our knowledge from our senses, y'know: taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing.So when we look at the world, first as babies and then as we grow, that's where our knowledge comes from.Our senses, our experiences serve as the foundation for our knowledge.Now, for a very different view, let's turn to another philosopher, Rene Descartes.
Descartes thought that you have to go much deeper to find the foundations.He believed that our senses are not to be trusted, so he wanted to find a more solid foundation for knowledge.He began with what has come to be called "methodological doubt."
And when we say "methodological doubt," well... Descartes believed that everything should be questioned... that is, approached with doubt.And if you could find one thing that cannot be false, that one thing would serve as a foundation for all other knowledge claims.
So, unlike John Locke, Descartes doubts that knowledge comes to him from his senses; he points out that, at some time or another, everyone has been deceived by their senses.We've all had experiences where our senses have been wrong- illusions, uh, perhaps mirages.When driving in the car on a hot summer day, you may see what looks like shimmering water on the road, which, as science tells us, is really just a mirage... an illusion caused by the heating of the air.Our senses are wrong; they've deceived us.And Descartes thinks that since our senses can deceive us, we ought not take for granted that what they tell us is really true.
That's the first step in his methodological doubt.From there he wonders, "Well, OK, I can doubt my senses, but can I doubt that I'm sitting in this room?"Can it seem that we're not really here, that we're somewhere else?He concedes that most of us would know that we're sitting in a room. But then he says, "Well, couldn't I just be dreaming?"He's had dreams that were so real that he thought he was awake when in fact he was actually asleep.And this is another good point: It's really hard to be sure that you're not actually dreaming- yet another proof for Descartes that we can't always trust what our senses are apparently telling us.We could be dreaming- and there's really no good way to prove that we're not.
So the commonsense picture of reality- that the world really is the way it looks to us-Descartes shows that we cannot just assume this to be true beyond all doubt, and he does this by talking about illusions. And also by arguing that we could be dreaming.
But consider this, he says, while one is thinking or doubting, or doing any of those sorts of mental activities, one has to exist, right? . To even think, "I doubt that I exist," you have to exist.
And so what Descartes has done is find at least one thing that he can be certain of.He says, "I exist," and that's a start. And other knowledge, he tells us, can be based on that foundation
旁白：听一段哲学课程。
教授：好，我们继续讨论……当哲学家在谈知识的基础时，他们不是指某个特定学科的信息来源。他们是指，我们是怎样知道我们所知的东西的。我们先讲一个哲学观——基础主义。
基础主义的观点是，我们的知识主张， 即我们认为我们知道的事物，需要一个基础。把知识当作房子，你的房子要建在一个坚实的地基上。如果你有个坚实的基础，你的房子就可能比较坚固。基础主义认为这也适用于知识层面。如果你的知识主张有个坚实基础，你的知识结构就很可能比较坚固，有效，真实。首先，你要有一些好的基础的知识主张，剩余的知识主张立足于此。至于什么样的知识主张才是基础性的，这就是特别有趣的地方，因为这得看你说的是哪个哲学家。
例如约翰·洛克。洛克的观点基本上是，人刚出生时，他们的思想就像白板，即我们出生时是没有任何知识的。我们通过感官获取知识，味觉、触觉、嗅觉、视觉和听觉。当我们观察世界，一开始作为婴儿，然后我们长大了，我们的知识就是这样来的。我们的感官，我们的经验，都是知识的基础。来看看另一位哲学家——勒内·笛卡儿提出的不同观点。
笛卡儿认为，要找到基础，你要更加深入。他认为我们的感官是不可信的，所以他想找出一个更可靠的知识基础。他从所谓的“怀疑方法论”开始。
说到怀疑方法论……笛卡儿认为，所有事物都值得质疑，也就是说，带着怀疑心去接触事物。假如你能找到绝对真实的事物，这就是所有其它知识主张的基础了。
与约翰·洛克不同，笛卡儿对他通过感官获取的知识感到怀疑。他指出，总有些时候，大家都被感官欺骗了。我们都有感官出错的经历——幻觉啦，还有可能是海市蜃楼啦。在炎热的夏天开车时，你可能会看到马路上有水在发光，但科学告诉我们，这只是海市蜃楼，是空气加热引发的幻觉。我们的感官是错误的，欺骗了我们。笛卡儿认为，既然我们的感官都能欺骗我们，我们就不应该把感官所得轻易当真。
这是他的怀疑方法论的第一步。基于此，他又思考，我能质疑我的感官，但我能质疑我现在坐在这个房间里这件事吗？有可能我们实际上不在这儿，而是在别的地方吗？他认为绝大多数人都知道我们正坐在房间里。接着他说，我不能是在做梦吗？他曾做过很逼真的梦，在梦里他以为他是清醒的，实际上他还在沉睡。还有一点很有道理：要知道你到底是不是在做梦是很难的，笛卡儿的另一条论据，即我们不能总是相信我们的感官在告诉我们什么。我们可以是在做梦--没有很好的办法能证明我们不在梦中。
人们普遍认为，世界就是我们观察到的样子，但笛卡儿表示，我们不能不经质疑就把这当成真理。他以谈论幻觉来证明自己的观点。声称我们也可能正在做梦。
但是想一下这个，他说，当一个人在思考，质疑或者进行任何一种脑力活动时，一个人必须是存在的，对吧？要质疑我的存在，首先你要存在！
所以，笛卡儿的贡献，就是他至少找出了一样肯定的事物。他说，“我存在。” 这就是开端。他告诉我们的其它知识都可立足于此。
题型分析：主旨题
原文定位：Professor: Okay. So, uh, to continue our discussion… When philosophers talk about the basis of knowledge, they don’t mean the source of information about any particular subject. They mean how we know what we know. Let’s start with one philosophical view—foundationalism.
选项分析： 文章开头直接给出Let’s start 作为提示，随后对于 foundationalism 进行了定义。然后分别详细阐述了two philosophers和foundation knowledge claims 的观点。
C选项即为对话核心名词claims的完美对应，是对全文主旨最准确的概括
如果对题目有疑问，欢迎来提出你的问题，热心的小伙伴会帮你解答。