第一章Chapter 1
哲学与《圣经》
PHILOSOPHY AND THE BIBLE (1-45)
[I] 哲学是什么？WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? (1-3)
- 『哲学』字义 “Philosophy”: Meaning of the Word
『哲学』的字义：爱智慧；对智慧的爱慕。
The word “philosophy”: love of wisdom.
智慧：更高层次的知识：探索意义深远，重要，又实际适切的问题。
Wisdom = a heightened kind of knowledge – a knowledge that penetrates to deep significance and practical relevance.
[注脚一。傅兰姆，《上帝论》，英文原著，页505。注意页505-509的讨论。]
[Footnote 1. DG, 505. See my discussion there, 505-09.]
古代：智慧文学传统：收集智人的名言。
Tradition of wisdom literature … gathering sayings of the wise.
《圣经》中：《约伯记》，《箴言》，《传道书》，《雅歌》：另外，以色列外很多文化。
In the Bible: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon – also many cultures outside Israel.
[《圣经》其他部分也有智慧文学的特征，例如：《诗篇》1，104篇；《马太福音》11:25-
30；《哥林多前书》1-3章；《雅各书》。]
[Footnote 2. Other parts of Scripture also have characteristics of wisdom literature – e.g. Psalms 1; 104; Matthew 11:25-30; 1 Corinthians 1-3; and the Letter of James.]
- 『哲学』的定义Definition of Philosophy
哲学的定义（傅兰姆）：哲学不仅是智慧文学的延伸。
Definition of philosophy (Frame):
Philosophy isn’t just an extension of the tradition of wisdom literature.
傅兰姆：哲学是『有纪律地说出并维护一个世界观』。
Frame: Philosophy is “the disciplined attempt to articulate and defend a worldview.”
世界观：对宇宙的一个一般性概念。
Worldview = a general conception of the universe.
实在（现实）最一般性的真理：Most general truths of reality:
世界的实况是什么？
我们凭什么知道？
我们该如何活？
What is,
how we know it,
how we should act.
因此：『世界观』是恰当的概念，用来指哲学研究的内容。
Therefore: the term “worldview” = an appropriate term for philosophy’s subject matter.
- 对『世界观』的不同态度Different Attitudes towards “Worldview”
- 喜欢用『大叙述』取代『世界观』Meta-narrative rather than worldview
今天很多人，喜欢用『大叙述』（叙述前的叙述）来指这个涵盖性的愿景(vision)。
Many people today: prefer “meta-narrative” for referring to this comprehensive vision.
大叙述视宇宙为一个不断前进的故事；
Meta-narrative sees the universe as an ongoing story,
世界观则视宇宙为一组物体，事实，过程。
Worldview sees the universe as a collection of things, facts, processes.
回应：RESPONSE:
『大叙述』和『世界观』这两个观念，是互为前提（预设）的。
The two ideas presuppose each other.
叙述若存在，必然是关乎某某事物的故事：关于事物（包括位格），事实，过程。
If there is a narrative, it must be about something – things (including persons), facts, processes.
而事物，事实，过程若存在，它们必然有其历史，可以透过叙述来描述…。
If there are things, facts, or processes, they have a history, can be described in a narrative, however dull the narrative might be.
- 有人认为：世界观/大叙述是不可能存在的；若存在，我们不可能获知。
Some people believe:
Worldviews/meta-narratives are impossible; or if they exist, we have no access to them.
利奥塔对『后现代思想』的定义：『不相信大叙述。』
Jean-Francois Lyotard’s definition of “postmodern thought”: “Incredulity toward meta-narratives.”
[ 注脚三。Footnote 3. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 7. ]
我们的回应RESPONSE:
是的：若有人认为自己知道宇宙的整个架构，听起来是蛮傲慢的。
Yes, it seems arrogant to claim: one knows general structure of universe.
但我们应该能理解：世界观其实是不可或缺的，至少作为暂时的假设 (working assumptions) ，是必需的。
But we should be able to understand: Worldviews are indispensable, at least as working assumptions.
例如：宇宙若不可能透过理性思考而认识，那么，花时间讨论它干啥？
E.g. If universe is inaccessible to rational thought, why discuss it at all?
后现代思想家为什么么认为：写书，立论，以支持他们的后现代主义有其价值？
Why should even post-modernist people believe there is value in writing books, making rational arguments to defend their postmodernism?
至终，我们必然会假设：宇宙是人的理性可以知道的 (accessible to the mind)。
Inevitably we assume: the world is accessible to the human mind.
而这样的假设就是对整个世界的一种信念：一个『世界观』。
And that assumption is a belief about the world as a whole – it is a worldview.
利奥塔可能竭力立论反对，但是当他如此作时，必须假设一个另类的世界：这个世界大部分是非理性的，人的理性不能认知；但是没无法解释地，有些小小的具理性的区域（小小的『叙述』） ，因着它们的存在，我们可以一同生活，彼此讨论。
Lyotard may argue against it, but in doing so, he necessarily assumes a different world – a world in which most of the universe is irrational, not accessible to the mind but in which, unaccountably, there are little pockets of rationality (“little narratives”) which enable us to live and talk together.
宇宙庞大的非理性，加上一些具理性的小区：这就构成利奥塔的世界观。
The irrational vastness, plus pockets of rationality, constitutes Lyotard’s worldview.
利奥塔并没有成功地排除了所有的世界观；只不过用一个世界观取代另一个而已。
He has not done away with meta-narratives, but has only substituted one for another.
- 基督徒对世界观的坚持（委身）：世界观源自《圣经》（傅兰姆）
Christian’s Commitment: A Worldview which Comes from Bible.
身为基督徒，我坚持我的世界观必须来自《圣经》。这是我的委身。
As a Christian, I am committed to a worldview which comes from Bible (Frame).
上帝是宇宙的创造主。
God is the Creator.
世界是祂所创造的。
The world is his creation.
人是按照祂的形象被造的。
Man is made in his image.
我们人类的困境，乃是罪和罪带来的后果。
Sin and its consequences are our predicament.
基督的赎罪大工乃是我们得救的根据。
Christ’s atonement is our salvation.
基督必将再来：那时，宇宙万物就达到终点(consummation)。
Christ will return – it will be the consummation of all things.
这个世界观，是我在本书中的预设（前提）：当我们与我们讨论的哲学家对话时，我也会为它争辩。
I will presuppose that worldview in this book – but also argue for it, in dialogue with the philosophers whom we will consider.
- 『循环论证？』的问题Question of Circularity
我为这个世界观争辩，但它同时是我的前提（预设），似乎是循环论证？
There might seem to be a kind of circularity in presupposing what I argue for.
但当我们讨论世界观时，这是必然的，不可避免的。
But that is inevitable, when we are dealing with worldviews.
当利奥塔为他的世界观争辩时，同时把它作为前提（预设）的。
Lyotard assumes his worldview when he argues for it.
理性主义者，必须诉诸理性来维护他们的理性主义。
Rationalists defend their rationalism by appealing to reason.
唯心（理想）主义者必须用根据唯心（理想）主义的论据来维护他们的唯心（理想）主义。
Idealists defend their idealism by constructing arguments informed by idealism.
经验主义者，至终必须诉诸五官经验来维护他们的经验主义，虽然他们很少这样作，我们也很难想象，这样的论据怎能成功。
Empiricists, in the end, must defend empiricism by appealing to sense experience, though they rarely try to do that, and it is hard to imagine how that defense could be successful.
哲学就是这样的；人生每一个层面都是这样的！
That is the way it is in philosophy, and in all of life:
我们不可能踏出自我！
We can’t step out of our skins.
我们最多能作的，就是彼此告诉对方，我们自己的世界观为什么对我们来说是合理的，也（对我们来说）合理地解释人生万事。
The best we can do is to show one another why our worldview makes sense to us, and makes sense (to us) of all of life.
当然我们也有权提议，对方的世界观可能不合理，当被审核时可能被解构（瓦解）。
And of course, we have the right to suggest that another person’s worldview might not make sense and might even deconstruct upon examination.
[ 注脚四。我在多处已经讨论过这个循环性。参：《神学认识论》，英文原著页130-133; 《护教学概论》英文新版，页10-15；《圣言论》英文原著，页24-25。]
[Footnote 4. I have discussed this type of circularity in more detail in many places. See DKG, 130-133; AJCB, 10-15; DWG, 24-25.]
这就是哲学讨论嘛！
That is an example of a philosophical discussion.
ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）