一、语言不严谨
原文中出现了“philosophers are not the only philosophers”这样的句子。这种逻辑自相矛盾的表达容易造成困惑。作者本意是强调“哲学化的思考不仅限于职业哲学家”，但因措辞不当，反而削弱了说服力。更恰当的表述应是：“Philosophers are not the only ones who philosophize.”
二、定义带有傲慢倾向
作者将“card-carrying philosophers”定义为“那些自觉地进行哲学化的人”。这种说法隐含了一种傲慢的区隔，好像只有职业哲学家才真正具备系统化的哲学自觉，而普通人的哲学思考只是零散、不自觉的。这忽视了哲学的公共性：许多伟大的哲学洞见来自诗人、科学家、政治家甚至普通人。哲学不应被职业身份垄断。更合理的表述应是：“所有人在反思经验、知识或价值时都在从事哲学化，职业哲学家只是将这种反思发展为系统探究的人。”
三、总结
作为哲学入门读物，这些表述既不严谨又带有不必要的傲慢色彩，容易误导读者。哲学的真正价值在于普遍的思考与反思，而不仅仅是职业群体的专利。
Critique of the Introduction to Philosophy of Mind
1. Lack of Precision in Language
The text contains the sentence “philosophers are not the only philosophers,” which is logically contradictory and confusing. The intended meaning seems to be that “philosophical thinking is not limited to professional philosophers,” but the phrasing is clumsy and misleading. A more accurate formulation would be: “Philosophers are not the only ones who philosophize.”
2. Arrogant Definition of Professional Philosophers
The author defines “card-carrying philosophers” as “those who philosophize self-consciously.” This implies an arrogant distinction: that only professional philosophers engage in systematic, self-aware philosophizing, while ordinary people merely think in scattered, unconscious ways. This neglects the public nature of philosophy. Many profound insights have come from poets, scientists, statesmen, and ordinary individuals. Philosophy should not be monopolized by professional identity. A better formulation would be: “All humans engage in philosophizing when they reflect on experience, knowledge, or values; professional philosophers are simply those who develop such reflections into systematic inquiry.”
3. Conclusion
As an introductory text, these expressions are both imprecise and unnecessarily arrogant, which risks misleading beginners. The true value of philosophy lies in universal reflection and inquiry, not in its confinement to a professional class.
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.