Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Squarespace：向世界分享你的熱情

By the time we’re done today, I just might have you questioning whether this apple is

在我們今天節目結束時，我會開始讓你質疑這顆蘋果到底

real or not. Think I can’t do it? Gimme about ten minutes! I might have you wondering

是不是真的。覺得我不會這麼做？給我約10分鐘的時間！我可能會讓你開始懷疑

whether I’m a physical object or not.

我到底是不是一個真實存在的實體

And the same goes for all of this stuff, and your computer, and Nick behind the camera! And … you!

同樣地你會對所有的事物、你的電腦，還有在攝影師尼克！還有...你自己！

How? By unleashing the power of empiricism.

如何做到？藉由釋放經驗主義的力量。

[Theme Music]

「主題音樂」

Last time, we learned about 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes, and how he upended the apple-basket

上一次，我們學到關於17世紀哲學家勒內·笛卡兒和他如何倒放蘋果籃

that was his entire personal belief system, and descended into a radical skepticism, only

那是他個人全部的信仰系統，且沈淪變成激進的懷疑論者，且與

to emerge with his conviction that: Cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am.

他的罪行一起浮上檯面：Cogito ergo sum，我思故我在

This one idea -- the fact that he was thinking -- or really, the fact that he was doubting

這個想法，事實上他只是猜想，或許真的，他其實只是在懷疑

-- allowed him to build back up, one by one, more beliefs that he thought he could rely on.

讓他能夠整理思緒，一塊一塊地，把更多的那些他覺得他可以倚賴的信仰給拼湊起來

But in the end, most of the beliefs that Descartes ended up putting back into his intellectual

但最終，大多數那些笛卡兒的信仰最後都被放回到他那智慧的

apple-basket had to do with the immaterial world.

蘋果藍裡處理著超凡世界

Like, he decided that he could believe that he existed, as a thinking thing.

像是，他決定他會相信自己以一個會思考的形式存在著

And he believed that God existed.

且他相信上帝也是存在的

Ultimately, he lit upon the idea that some of our thoughts are clear and distinct in

最後，他燃起了一個點子：我們的想法一部分在某個層面來說是保證真實

a way that somehow guarantees their truth.

且清晰與獨特的

But, a lot of philosophers disagreed. They argued that thinking on its own wasn’t enough.

但是，很多的哲學家不同意他的說法。他們覺得這樣的想法本身並不充足

Like, just because you’re thinking, doesn’t mean that your thoughts correspond to material

像是，就算你在思考，也不代表你的想法和物質

reality in any reliable way.

真實具有可靠的對應關係

Basically, Descartes’ philosophical opponents thought that the Cogito was a dead end.

基本上，笛卡兒的哲學對手們覺得我思故我在是個沒有出路的死胡同

So here, we start to see a split between two different understandings of how we can most

所以在這，我們開始來看在兩個對於我們如何能夠最貼近

reliably get to the nature of reality, and therefore truth. Both were responses to the

了解真實的本質的方法的分野，然後再看結果、事實。這兩者

constant questioning that is skepticism. On the one hand, there was rationalism.

對應到持續地質疑，也就是懷疑主義。一方面，是理性主義

And on the other: empiricism

而另一方面：是經驗主義

Descartes, like Plato long before him, was a lover of reason. He met skepticism with rationalism.

笛卡兒，像早先於他的柏拉圖，是個理智的擁護者。他將懷疑主義與理性主義碰撞在一塊

He believed that the most real things in life were ideas -- propositions that can be known through pure reason.

他相信生命中最真實的東西就是想法，是我們能夠透過其了解純粹理智的中介

Deductive truths, which we talked about before, fall into this category. And mathematical truths do, too.

演繹法，我們之前談論過的，就是這個範疇裡的一個例子。且數學法則亦是。

But by contrast, empiricism is based on the principle that the most reliable source of

但相對地，經驗主義是基於我們最可靠來源的知識最為準則

knowledge isn’t our ideas, or our reasoning, but our senses.

那並不是我們的想法，或我們的理智，而是我們的感受

Sure, we can know things through deduction and basic logic.

的確，我們能以演繹法和基礎邏輯來了解事情

But what actually leads us to truth, or at least gives us our best shot at getting there,

但真正將我們帶往真理的，或至少最有機會讓我們達到那個境界的

are things like induction, and the scientific method -- ways of thinking that tell us about the material world.

東西像是歸納，以及科學方法，告訴我們關於物質世界樣貌的幾種方法

Probably the most famous split among philosophers between these two camps was the life-long

也許在哲學家之中的兩個不同陣營的分裂最有名的就屬

debate between Plato and Aristotle.

柏拉圖和亞里斯多德終其一生的辯論了

Plato was convinced that Truth resided in the immaterial world of Ideas, while Aristotle’s

柏拉圖相信真理存在於非物質世界，像是想法裡。而亞里斯多德則

attention was focused firmly on the ground.

認為物質世界才是真理歸依

But what about in Descartes’ day? If he was the original prototype of the navel-gazing

但在笛卡兒所處的時代呢？如果他是那種原始類型、目光狹隘的

philosopher -- a living example of rationalist thinking — then his foil was was the 17th

哲學家，只是一個理性思考的活證據的話，那他的鼻組就會是17世紀

century English thinker John Locke. This is where he was born.

英國思想家John Locke。這是他出生的地方

Locke believed that we’re all born as a tabula rasa, or a blank slate.

Locke相信我們全都從tabula rasa或者一塊空白的泥石板生出來的

He argued that all knowledge is obtained through experience.

他認為所有的知識都是透過經驗而來

He rejected the concept of innate ideas -- the view that we’re born pre-loaded with certain

他拒絕相信天生具有想法的概念，一種我們天生就有內建特定

information, like what’s good versus what’s bad, or what is the nature of God.

資訊的觀點，像是是非對錯的觀念或者神的本質等等

Locke thought that we are born knowing nothing.

Locke覺得我們出生時是一無所知的

And instead, all of our knowledge comes to us through sense data.

而是在經過感官接收資訊才形成我們所有的知識

But one place where Locke agreed with Descartes was in the idea that, just because your senses

但是有個地方Locke同意笛卡兒的看法，就是儘管你的感官告訴你某些

tell you something, that doesn’t mean you can trust it.

事情，並不代表你就可以信任它

After all, sometimes your senses give you false information, like when you think you

畢竟，有時候你的感官會給你錯誤訊息，就像當你覺得你

see or hear something that’s just not there.

看到或者聽見某個不存在的東西一樣

Descartes’ response to this, of course, was to just throw out all sense experience

笛卡兒的對此的回應當然就是陳述所有的感官經驗

as an unreliable source of knowledge.

都是知識的不可靠來源

But Locke didn’t go that far. Instead, in order to figure out whether the senses accurately

但是Locke 並沒有把話說得那麼死，相對的，為了要了解我們是否能正確地感覺

reflect the outside world, he introduced a distinction between what he called the primary

以反應外界的世界，他引進了一個稱為全物體的初階和二階性質

and secondary qualities of all things.

的分野

Primary qualities are qualities that physical objects themselves have. They’re not in

初階性質就是物理物體的本質。Locke稱它們不

our minds, Locke argued -- they’re actually in the stuff. These primary qualities include

存在我們的心智當中，而其實存在物體本身。這些初階性質包含了

things like solidity -- the density, weight, and mass of an object. And also extension

像是固性，一個物體的密度、重量和質量。且同樣地延伸至

-- the height, depth, and width that a certain thing has. He also included figure, or the

某物的特定高度、深度和寬度等範圍。他的論述也包含了數字，或者

shape of an object, as well as mobility, which is this – whether it’s stationary or in motion.

物體的形狀，以及移動性，也就是這個物體不論是否是靜止還是正在運動中亦然

So primary qualities, Locke said, belong to the thing itself.

Locke說初階性質是屬於物體本身的性質

Take this apple. It weighs maybe 150 grams, is the size of my palm, roundish, but firm,

拿著個蘋果為例。它重也許150公克，大小為一個手掌大，圓滾滾的，但是堅實

with the slightest bit of give, and right now it’s moving through the air.

只要輕輕施點力，它就會像現在一樣在空中移動

Those are its primary qualities.

這些是它的初階性質

But it has secondary qualities, too.

但是，它也有二階性質

And by Locke’s standards, they are not real. At least not in any objective, agreed-upon way.

且以Locke的標準來看，它們並不真實。至少不是在任何客觀的、大家都同意的範疇裡

They’re just in our minds. But they get there through the primary qualities.

它們就僅只於存在我們的心智中。不過它們是藉由初階性質而達到我們的心智中

I’m talking about things like its color, taste, texture, smell, and sound.

我在說的像是顏色、味道、質感、氣味和聲音

The secondary qualities of this apple are its redness, and how it tastes and smells

這顆蘋果的二階性質是它的紅色，還有它的口感和香味

and feels on my tongue and hand. Even how it sounds when I bite into it.

還有它在我的舌頭和手上的觸感。甚至我咬它時發出的聲音也是

Locke believed that the distinction between primary and secondary qualities explained

Locke 相信那個初階和二階之間的差別，也就是我們都對於外界世界有所認知的事實可以

the disagreements that we all have about our perceptions of the outside world.

推翻那些不同意他論點的人

Like, we could measure this apple in a bunch of ways and all agree on its primary qualities,

像是，我們可以用許多不同種的方法測量這顆蘋果，並且對這顆蘋果的許多初階性質們都達到共識

but its secondary qualities would no doubt lead to some disputes.

但是其二階性質卻不免有許多爭議存在

Like, is it really red? What kind of red exactly? Cardinal red? Or carmine red? It’s kind

例如，那真的是紅色？究竟是哪樣的紅？心臟那樣的紅色？或者洋紅色？

of dark purple at the top -- or is it just like a dark pink?

是有點黑紫色在上頭或者就只是深粉紅色？

What about the sound it made? Would I call that crunchy? Or crispy? Or...bite-y? It’s like, apple sound.

那咬下它的時候的聲音又是如何？我能說他是很緊實？還是很脆？或者很有嚼勁？這就像是，蘋果的聲音一般

We could argue about that kind of stuff til the cows came home.

我們能夠花許多時間爭論那樣的事情

But if we disagree about its primary qualities – one of us is simply wrong. Because primary

但若我們不同意它的初階性質，我們之中就只會有一個人是錯的。因為初階

qualities have nothing to do with you, or me. Instead they have everything to do with the object itself.

性質與你或我的主觀認定都無關，就只有和它自己客觀條件有關

Locke’s reasoning was simple, even elegant, extracting a lot of explanatory power out

Locke的理由很簡單，甚至優雅，從很少的基本的概念中

of very few basic concepts. As a result, it resonated with a lot people.

萃取出許多有力的解釋。結果，他得到了許多人的認同

And one person it resonated strongly with was the Irish philosopher George Berkeley.

且有個人，愛爾蘭哲學家喬治．博客來尤其強烈認同其觀點

He was moved by Locke’s empiricism and took it seriously -- so seriously, in fact, that

他被Locke的經驗主義打動且十分認真的看待之，是真的非常地嚴肅相待，事實上，

ended up using Locke’s own logic against him.

最後還用Locke的邏輯來推翻他自己的邏輯

He basically took empiricism to its logical conclusion, dismantling the whole process

他基本上把經驗主義當做他邏輯的最終結論，將整個認知過程分解成小塊

of perception to the point that he had to wonder whether anything existed at all.

直到他開始懷疑到底是否有任何事物真正存在

Berkeley began by taking apart the distinction that Locke made between primary and secondary qualities.

博客來開始分開那些Locke所說的初階和二階性質的不同

Like, think about this apple again. How do you know its shape?

像是，再想想這顆蘋果。你怎麼知道它的形狀的？

Locke said that the apple’s shape, as a primary quality, is immediately perceivable.

Locke說蘋果的形狀是一個初階性質，是直接可以認知到的

But Berkeley pointed out that you don’t perceive some qualities of an object, while

但是博客來指出有些事物的性質是你無法認知的，而

totally disregarding others. Like, you can’t detect an apple’s shape without first --

與其他的性質完全無相關。像是，你不能不先看見蘋果的顏色或至少不能少了看見蘋果的顏色

or at least without also -- detecting its color. When you think about it, you can’t detect

這件事情，就知道它的形狀。當你想起那顆蘋果時，你不能將它的二階性質忽略

any of the primary qualities without also considering the secondary ones.

而只偵測它的任何一種初階性質

You can’t see a colorless apple. You can’t feel a textureless apple.

你不可能看到一個無色的蘋果。你不能感受一個無質地的蘋果

In fact, if you try to strip away the apple’s secondary qualities in an effort to get at

事實上，你若試著去掉蘋果的二階性質來找它的

the primary ones, you end up with no apple at all.

一階性質的話，你會落得最後連蘋果都消失的下場

Try it: Close your eyes and imagine an apple made of only primary qualities -- so, it has

試看看：閉起你的眼睛，想像一棵蘋果只有初階性質構成，然後，它

a certain shape and a certain size, but it doesn’t have any color or texture or taste.

有某種形狀且有特定大小，但它並沒有任何質地或顏色或者是味道

You can’t do it.

你是不可能做到的

You try to imagine it with no color, but really, you’re probably imagining one that’s either

你試著去想像沒有顏色的蘋過但事實上，你可能想像著一顆

black or white or transparent -- the color of what’s behind it.

白或黑或者透明的蘋果，這個在背景中出現而不可忽略的顏色

And if you try to imagine it as having no texture, you’ll find there’s still a texture

而你若試著去想像它是沒有質地的，你還是會發現它仍然有質地

there – it’s just smooth.

它就是平滑的

Remember: Locke asserted that secondary qualities are not objectively real. They can only be

切記：Locke聲稱二階性質全都不是客觀真實。他們只可以被

subjectively perceived. But now, Berkeley has shown that the two are inextricably linked

主觀地認定。但是現在，博客來告訴我們這兩者不可分割地彼此連結

– you can’t have one without the other.

你不能只要其中一個

Which means that primary qualities can’t be real, either. They, too, are just what

也就是說，初階性質也不能是真實的。它們兩者，都僅是

your mind makes of things.

你心智的產物

So this led Berkeley to a startling conclusion: There’s just no such thing as matter.

故這導致博客來推論出一個令人咋舌的結論：其實物質並不存在

There can’t be! Instead, there’s only perceptions.

一定不可能存在！只有你的覺知存在而已

Berkeley’s famous assertion -- his version of cogito ergo sum --

博客來的有名斷言，這是屬於他的「我思故我在」版本

was esse est percepi: “to be is to be perceived.”

就是esse est perecpi：「我感知故我在」

In his opinion, there are no objects, only perceivers – and even then, the perceivers

他的看法就是物體並不存在，只有我們這些能覺知的主體存在，且甚至，這些覺知主體

themselves don’t really have any physical form. They’re just disembodied minds perceiving

本身也並不以物理形式存在。他們僅僅是沒有肉體的

things that aren’t really there.

心智所組成的覺察並不存在的事物

A little bit terrifying when you start thinking about it.

當你想到這的時候會有點嚇人

In Berkeley’s scenario, we’re all set adrift in a world of nothing but thought.

在博客來斷言建構的場景下，我們都以不句形體的想法存在這個世界當中

What’s scary about it is this, if everything’s just perception, then when the perception

這可怕的是，若任何事物都只是覺知的產物，那麼當覺知

goes away, there can’t be anything left.

消失時，就沒有任何東西會留下來了

So like, please, for the love of Pete, do not turn away from your computer! If you stop

所以像是，拜託看在Pete的面子上，別離開你的電腦！若你停止

perceiving me, I stop existing!

覺知我，我就停止存在了！

But, what if maybe you don’t care about me? Still, you’d better not go to sleep,

但是，說不定你也不在乎我？同樣地，你也最好不要睡覺

because as soon as you do, you’ll cease to exist! Because, you won’t be able to

因為只要你一睡，你就停止存在了！因為你自己不能覺知你

perceive yourself! The only guarantee that you’ll continue to exist in your sleep is

自己！當你進入睡眠唯一保證繼續存在的方法就是

to have a friend watch you when you’re sleeping. Which probably is a non-starter, for a number of reasons.

讓一個朋友看著你睡。正常人都知道這十之八九是不可能成功的

But in any case, the second your friend blinks, you’re gone!

但是不論如何，只要你的朋友一扎眼，你就消失了！

So in the end, Berkeley believed there was only one thing that kept us --

所以最終，博客來相信只有一個東西

and everything else -- from disappearing into oblivion.

得以讓我們和其他事物不要進入虛無

God. Berkeley believed that God was the Ultimate Perceiver.

就是上帝。博客來相信上帝是終極覺知者

God is always watching, with unblinking perception that holds objects in existence even when we’re not paying attention.

祂永遠在看著我們，也不曾扎過一次眼停止覺知萬物，所以能夠讓物體保持存在狀態，即便我們沒有專心覺知亦然

The tough thing about Berkeley is, we all pretty much think he has to be wrong.

這件事情上我們大多認為博客來是錯的

Very few of us are willing to give up our belief in the physical world — no matter who’s watching.

我們其中很少人會放棄我們對物質世界的信仰，不論到底誰在「看著」

We are sensory animals! We really need this apple to exist.

我們是感官動物！我們真的需要蘋果真實存在

Next time, we’re going to take a side journey into the world of knowledge. And then, in

下一次，我們要來進行支線任務進入世界知識巡禮。然後在

episode 8, we’ll see if Karl Popper can manage to get the physical world back for us.

第8集中，我們會看到Karl Popper是否能夠將物質世界還給我們

Today we have learned about empiricism as a response to skepticism. We talked about

今天我們學到關於經驗主義對上懷疑主義。我們談到

John Locke and his distinction between primary and secondary qualities. And we’ve seen

John Locke和他的初階、二階性質的不凡見解。且我們看了

why George Berkeley thinks that distinction ultimately falls apart -- leaving us with

為何喬治．博客來覺得那個見解終將崩解，讓我們最終

literally nothing but our minds, ideas, and perceptions.

身處在除了我們心智、想法和覺知之外的一個虛無的世界

This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace. Squarespace

這集的哲學速成課程由Squarespace製作。Squarespace

is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas. Squarespace

是一個製作網站、部落格或是網誌的平台。Squarespace

features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and 24/7 customer support. Try Squarespace

以對使用者友善介面、客製化模版和全年無休消費者諮詢等特色著稱。前往Squarespace

at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

試試看Squarespace.com/crashcourse獲得特別的優惠

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over

哲學速成課程由PBS Digital Studios協辦完成。你可以前往

to their channel to check out some amazing shows like Idea Channel, The Art Assignment, and Gross Science

他們的頻道來看看像是Idea Channel、The Art Assignment和Gross Science等許多很棒的節目

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

這集的速成課程是由Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio拍攝

with the help of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

由許多很棒的人和我們同樣厲害的動畫團隊Thought Cafe共同協助完成