视频库 / NO.045
--:--
点击播放，这里会跟随视频显示当前句的中英字幕。
第 45 期 · 核心追问 Ⅱ·01「知识从哪里来？」
Socrates & Plato's Philosophy - Myles Burnyeat & Bryan Magee (1987)
节目发布 2023-08-22章节 · 点击跳转视频
0:37
从前苏格拉底到柏拉图的开场
3:57
苏格拉底之死如何催生柏拉图
7:10
早期对话：诘问法与无定论
9:55
苏格拉底的两组隐含学说
13:35
历史苏格拉底与作者立场之谜
16:23
学习即回忆：诘问法的元理论
20:55
型相论：普遍与特殊之别
25:42
文学成就与《理想国》的整体性
29:23
晚期对话：自我批判与《巴门尼德》
32:21
《蒂迈欧》：数学秩序与价值科学
38:29
《泰阿泰德》：知识的三个定义
41:18
柏拉图主义为何延续至今
本期小问 · 档案清单
16:23
知识从哪里来？
7:10
怎样学，才是真的在学？
38:29
真理是客观，还是共识？
9:55
知道了，为什么还是做不到？
本期讲者
布莱恩·麦基英国哲学家、广播人与前工党议员（1930–2019），以 BBC 哲学访谈系列《Men of Ideas》《The Great Philosophers》闻名，著有《哲学的故事》《一个哲学家的自白》。
迈尔斯·伯恩耶特英国古代哲学学者（1939–2019），时任剑桥大学劳伦斯古代哲学讲席教授，后任牛津万灵学院高级研究员；以《泰阿泰德篇》研究和对苏格拉底方法、古代怀疑论的论著著称。
01从前苏格拉底到柏拉图的开场
0:37
Any attempt to tell the story of Western philosophy must begin with the ancient Greeks, who produced not only the first, but some of the greatest Western philosophers. The one whose name is probably most familiar is Socrates, who died in the year 399 BC. But there were several outstanding Greek philosophers before him, some of whose names are also widely known. For example, Pythagoras and Heraclitus. And there were others, too, of comparable caliber. The first one of all being Thales, who flourished in the 6th century BC.
1:10
If all these pre-Socratic philosophers can be said to have had one common concern, it was an attempt to find universal principles which would explain the whole of nature. In today's terms, they were as much concerned with what we would call science as with what we would call philosophy. Now, Socrates was in conscious rebellion against their tradition. He maintained that what we most need to learn is not how nature works, but how we ourselves ought to live, and therefore that we need first and foremost to consider moral questions.
1:45
Socrates didn't write anything. He did all his teaching by word of mouth, and none of the writings of any of the pre-Socratic philosophers have come down to us directly. So, all that we know of any of the philosophers whose names I've mentioned so far is what has come down to a second hand through the writings of others, though this does include some pretty long summaries and a good many direct quotations. The first philosopher who wrote works which we actually now possess complete was Plato. He was a pupil of Socrates and in fact it's from Plato's writings that most of our knowledge of Socrates derives.
2:22
In his own right, however, Plato was beyond any question one of the greatest philosophers of all time, some think the greatest. So, if we have to choose an arbitrary starting point in what is after all a continuous story, then in many ways a good one is the year 399 BC with the death of Socrates and then the subsequent writings of Plato. Plato was about 31 when Socrates died and lived to be 81. During that half century he founded his famous school in Athens, the Academy, which was the prototype of what we call a university, and he produced his writings, nearly all of which take the form of dialogues with different arguments being put in the mouths of different characters, one of whom nearly always is Socrates.
3:11
Most, though not all, of these dialogues are called by the name of one of the people Socrates is talking to in them. Thus, we have the Phaedo, the Laches, the Euthyphro, the Theaetetus, the Parmenides, the Timaeus, and so on. There are more than two dozen of them, some of them 20, some 80, a couple of them 300 pages long. The most famous of all are probably the Republic and the Symposium. But most of them are easily available nowadays in paperback translations. The best are regarded as works of literature, great works of literature, as well as of philosophy. Plato was an artist as well as a thinker, and many people regard his prose as the finest Greek prose ever to have been written by anyone.
02苏格拉底之死如何催生柏拉图
3:57
With me now is one of the acknowledged experts on Plato in the English-speaking world, the Professor of Ancient Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, Myles Burnyeat. Professor Burnyeat, I know that you regard Plato's career as a creative philosopher as having been somehow launched by Socrates' death. How was that? Well, I think Socrates' death in 399 must have been a traumatic event for a lot of people. Socrates had been this spellbinding presence around in Athens for many, many years, much loved, much hated. He'd been on caricatured on the comic stage.
4:37
Then suddenly this familiar figure's not there anymore. And he's not there because I mean, this is the must have been the most traumatic thing. He's been condemned to death on a charge of impiety and corrupting the young. Well, he'd had a lot of followers, and some of them, amongst them Plato, began writing Socratic dialogues. Conversations, philosophical conversations in which Socrates takes the lead. Must have been like a chorus of voices saying to the Athenians, "Look, he's not gone after all. He's still here, still asking those awkward questions, still tripping up with his arguments." And of course, they were also defending his reputation and showing he'd been unjustly condemned. He was the great educator of the young, not the great corrupter.
5:29
But the death of Socrates wasn't just, so to speak, a launching pad for Plato, was it? It The whole of Plato's outlook can, in one sense, be explained with reference to Socrates, can it not? I think it can. Um the to keep alive the Socratic spirit for Plato meant to go on doing philosophy in the way Socrates had done. To So, what you get is a group of early dialogues in which he is basically showing Socrates discussing the sorts of questions he was interested in, very largely moral questions. But, since to do philosophy in the Socratic way means to do it by thinking philosophically, the process bit by bit and inevitably leads Plato to develop his own ideas in a host of other areas so that Socrates There's a sort of evolution in the picture of Socrates from the gadfly questioner of the early dialogues. He gradually turns into the man who's expounding political theories, metaphysical theories, and so on in the middle period dialogues, Meno, Symposium, Phaedo, and Republic.
6:40
And I suppose also one can say that in the early dialogues Plato is dealing with subjects that interested Socrates and dealing with them with with them in Socrates's way and is then carried, so to speak, by his own momentum as the years go by into dealing with subjects that interest him, Plato, and beginning to deal with them in a different way. I think that's right. Wherever he can plausibly present the ideas as the outgrowth of thinking about Socrates's ideas, they get put in the mouth of Socrates.
03早期对话：诘问法与无定论
7:10
And I think it's very important to that what he the way he presents Socrates the historical claim he makes about him is this is a man who thought for himself and taught others to think for themselves. So, if you want to be a follower of Socrates, that means thinking for yourself and if necessary departing from ideas and areas that Socrates had marked out. Now, these early dialogues, where Socrates is dealing with moral questions, all have a certain common pattern, don't they? I mean, what happens in nearly all of them is that Socrates is talking to some interlocutor uh thinks he knows the meaning of some very familiar term like friendship or courage or piety or something of that kind. And by simply quizzing him, by interrogating him, by submitting him to what's become known as Socratic questioning, Socrates shows this person, and incidentally the onlookers as well, that they don't at all have a clear grasp of this concept that they thought they understood so well. Now, this process has itself been of enormous
8:14
importance in philosophy ever since, hasn't it? Not only has it been, but these very works are still very widely used to teach philosophy and to introduce philosophy to people who want to know something about it. You start with a familiar and important concept. It's always a concept that's important in our life. And you get people to realize that there are problems in that concept. They try to think about it. They produce an answer. Socrates shows the inadequacy of the answer. You end up not with a firm answer, but with a much better grasp of the problem than you had before.
8:57
And you, the reader, 20th century reader or an ancient reader, are left both drawn into the problem and wanting to get the answer and feeling that perhaps you can contribute to it. help reflecting that even after more than 2,000 years, we are still puzzling about the meaning of terms like beauty or courage or friendship. We are still wondering precisely what these things consist of. Have we got any further after all this time? Yes and no must be the answer, mustn't it? Um I think Plato would very be very firmly insistent that even if he did know the answer, if he told us, it wouldn't do us any good. I mean, it's the nature of these questions that they are ones that you have to think about for yourself, and an answer is worth nothing unless it's come through your own thinking. And that's why these dialogues are so successful as instruments for drawing you into philosophy.
04苏格拉底的两组隐含学说
9:55
In those early dialogues that we're still for the moment confining ourselves to, um one thing that Socrates keeps saying is that he has no positive doctrines of his own to teach, that all he's doing is asking people questions. There seems to me something disingenuous about this claim on Socrates's part. I think that in fact there are so to speak unacknowledged doctrines lying under the surface of these dialogues. Would you agree with that? Well, there are some doctrines that emerge, not very many.
10:30
Um there is a group of ideas which comes out in the Apology, for instance, when he says that to a good man no harm can come either during his life or after his death, and which comes out in the Gorgias, when he argues at great length that injustice harms the doer, and justice benefits the doer. It's the idea that there is no real harm that can come to you. You lose your money, stricken by paralyzed by disease. None of that really counts as harm. Only the loss of your virtue would count it. Only going in for bad practices like injustice. They would be the only real harm, cuz the only real harm is harm to the soul. There's a group of ideas which he's Socrates is very emphatic about, where he sometimes even claims to have knowledge, and it's also a group of ideas where Plato never renegues on Socrates. He remains convinced of the truth of the proposition that injustice harms the doer and justice benefits him.
11:39
And that's provided your soul remains untouched, worldly misfortunes don't do you any harm of any really deep significance. That's right. Yes. There's another group of ideas which Socrates where Socrates does not claim knowledge and where Plato eventually is going to renegue on Socrates. And that's the group of ideas summed up in the statement that virtue is knowledge. In these dialogues, when somebody's asked what's courage, what's friendship, what's justice, sooner or later, as the discussion proceeds, the idea emerges that this virtue, courage or piety, should be regarded as a kind of knowledge.
12:20
And that's just as strong and paradoxical a statement as the first group of ideas, because common sense, and I mean common sense then as now, ordinarily says that it's one thing to have the wisdom to know what the best thing to do in a given situation is, but another thing which you also need, the courage to carry it out if it's difficult, or the temperance to resist an easier option instead. Wisdom's one virtue, one quality to admire in a person, courage is another, and a man may have one and not the other or diff- each of them to different degrees.
12:58
But if courage just is this knowledge, then that kind of contrast can't arise. If I don't do the right thing, it can't be that I knew what I should do, but lacked the courage to carry it out. I just If I lacked the courage, I lacked the knowledge, and I didn't know what the right thing to do was. So, any wrongdoing that I do is done in ignorance because I didn't know it wasn't the best thing to do. And if done in ignorance, done involuntarily. So, no one does wrong willingly is the famous way it's summed up.
05历史苏格拉底与作者立场之谜
13:35
Doesn't the unvarying dialogue form that Plato writes in give rise to two rather important and also really unnecessary problems? First, to what extent is this the historical Socrates whose views have been put before us? And to what extent is he a kind of fictional character created by Plato because after all all these dialogues were written after Socrates' death. And the other question, perhaps related to that, is what are the author's own views? Because again, since these are all dialogues, it means that all opinions are put into the mouth of other characters. And that sometimes at least leaves us feeling that we're not quite sure what Plato himself actually thinks.
14:22
Well, I think there's a sense in which we need to worry about this question and in a sense in which we don't. The sense in which we don't is that Plato's portrait of Socrates makes the claim here is a man who thought for himself and would overthrow long-cherished conclusions if it turned out that he thought they were wrong. Uh and he taught others to do the same. So, if Plato comes to think that there is more to virtue than knowledge, though knowledge remains the most important factor, and he does come to think this, then it's only in keeping with the Socratic spirit to throw over the doctrine that virtue is knowledge and produce a better view of his own.
15:08
The other side of the coin is, of course, it's most important that we notice what's happening when Socrates in the Republic says something incompatible with what Socrates said in the Protagoras, notice that we're getting a a view and how it connects with all the other concerns of the Republic, how it makes a much more complicated picture of moral education, and how it makes possible a new vision of a political ideal society. The important thing is the search and the inquiry, but it's got to be inquiry, search with understanding of where we've got to from where.
15:41
Yes. In other words, because our assumptions and in beliefs and so on are open to perpetual questioning, conclusions in quotation marks don't have any special status. They're They are themselves staging posts on the road to further inquiries. That's I think what Plato believed very strongly. Yes. And and so he's in a way demonstrating this to us by his practice. Exactly. And I think he would claim that that was what it was to keep the Socratic spirit alive. Yeah. Perpetual question. Mhm. It's usual, isn't it, to divide Plato's output into three periods. Happens so often with writers and even creative artists. It's the early, the middle, and the later.
06学习即回忆：诘问法的元理论
16:23
And so far in this discussion, we've been confining ourselves to consideration of the early dialogues. When you move to the middle period Plato dialogues, you find Plato for the first time beginning to put forward positive ideas of his own, not Socrates's, but Plato's own ideas, and to argue for those ideas. Which would you say are the most important of Plato's positive doctrines? I think one has to single out two above all, the theory of forms and the doctrine that learning is recollection. The idea that to learn something is to recover from within your mind's recesses uh knowledge that you had before you were born.
17:06
Let me take that one first of the two. I think a lot of people will think when they first hear this that uh we're born knowing things. That might sound a bit bizarre. But at least very closely related ideas to that have been permanent in our Western culture. I mean, idealist philosophers have thought that there was innate knowledge or innate ideas. Most of the religions, I think, believe something of the sort. And we even have eminent contemporary thinkers like Chomsky believing that you're born with a whole grammar programmed into your mind. Now, what was Plato's version of this belief?
17:41
Plato's version was that this knowledge was part of the essential nature of the soul, which the soul possessed before you were born, because he believes at this period in the soul existing before it's embodied in this world. And I think to understand this theory, um one's got to go back to those early Socratic discussions. Uh if you look at one of these early discussions, somebody is asked for a definition of, let's say, courage. And Laches, who's the person who was asked that, says at one point, "Courage is endurance."
18:21
Socrates then asks him some further questions, and he always does this when he's being given a definition. He says, "Is courage invariably a fine and admirable quality?" "Yes," says Laches. And then Socrates takes him through a number of examples of endurance where endurance is not admirable at all, maybe very foolhardy, big-headedness big-headedness, or it could just be morally neutral, as when some a financier keeps on spending money, enduring the losses, because he knows he's going to get a profit at the end. So, if endurance is morally neutral or bad, courage isn't. Courage is always good, then courage can't be endurance.
19:03
That's a typical pattern of Socratic discussion. Logically, all that's actually happened is Laches has been shown that his beliefs are inconsistent. If we take all the answers together, they can't all be right because they contradict each other. But Socrates always presents the situation as one in which that definition, courage is endurance, has been refuted. So that he is in practice taking Laches' secondary answers as either true or somehow nearer the truth than the definition and hence available as a basis for refuting the definition and saying that's the one that's got to go.
19:43
Can I just uh stop you there cuz I think you've said something that's of great importance to us all today. I think we all tend to have this assumption that by discussion you can get at the truth. Whereas almost by definition discussion can't necessarily do that. All it can show The most it can show you is that your conclusions are consonant with your premises. But of course if there's something wrong with the premises, then there'll be something wrong with the conclusion. Well, we are very attached to this idea.
20:10
And if you think about it, it's actually quite hard to justify. Socrates doesn't try to justify it. He just does this and says we've now refuted the definition. But if one had to give a theory of what he's doing, uh then one would have to say something like what I've just said and you've just implied that we all have within us the means for making the truth vanquish the false. And that's exactly what Plato does in the Meno. He produces as it were a theory of Socratic or philosophical discussion which puts forward the suggestion that we all have latent within our minds the correct answers to these questions, what is courage, what is justice, and so on.
07型相论：普遍与特殊之别
20:55
And is that knowledge deep back within, not immediately accessible, that knowledge is what enables us to knock down all the wrong answers and show they're wrong. And that knowledge is gradually emerging bit by bit in the course of that bit of discussion where, for instance, one thing that Leakey's says is used to show that some other thing that Leakey says must be false. Now, I know that in your view, the doctrine you just expanded for us ties up directly with what the basis is for Plato's most famous doctrine of all, the theory of forms. That doctrine must have been the most influential part of his philosophy in the whole history of philosophy. In fact, it's what the word Platonism has historically almost come to mean. Now, can you explain that to us?
21:47
Well, remember that these discussions which Socrates has are all centered on a definitional question. What is the definition of courage, of beauty, of justice? If now we have latent within ourselves the knowledge of the answers to those questions, and we have that knowledge independently of and prior to our experience of the world we live in, our using our senses, our going around from place to place, we our knowledge is prior to that, independent of that, then surely what we know, justice, beauty, courage, must itself be independent of and prior to this empirical world we're now existing in.
22:39
And that thesis is the fundamental assertion of the theory of forms, that justice, beauty, and the like exist independently of and prior to all the just actions, just people, all the beautiful things, statues, objects, any you can find. Um beauty and justice exist on their own and apart. That's the theory of forms. This theory that there is another world than this, uh, an ideal world which is not this world, but in which everything exists that actually gives value and meaning to this world has had incalculable influence on the whole of our culture, hasn't it?
23:21
Yes. It's had immense influence on Christianity, for example. I don't want to go into that now because I think we ought to stick to the philosophy, but that's just one example of the enormous influence that it's had. Yes. Yes. And But I think one should be careful of using phrases like the the world of forms or another world. Plato uses them, but the contrast he has in mind is not as one might have thought a contrast between one set of particular things and then another one completely like it except more perfect, more abstract, somewhere else, some heaven somewhere.
23:59
His contrast is between the particular and the general. Those questions, what is justice, what is beauty, are general questions. They're not questions about the here and now and that's the contrast. There's a point in the Phaedo where Socrates is saying that to do philosophy is to rehearse for death. It is in fact to practice being dead. Why? Well, because being dead is having one's soul separate from the body. And not considering the things of this world. And in doing philosophy, you are so far as you can separating the soul from the body because you're not thinking about the here and now. If you're asking what's justice anywhere, anytime, justice in itself, you're not asking who did me wrong now, yesterday. If you're asking what's beauty, you're not asking who is the most beautiful person in this room. And if you're not thinking about the here and now, then in the sense Plato is interested in, you are not here and now. You are where your mind is, not because you're in some other particular place, but a better
25:06
one, but because you're not in that in place in that sense at all. You're immersed in generalities. So, it's all right to use the phrase the world of forms subject to the qualification that that means the realm of invariable generalities. Yeah, so the word world here is actually misleading. We mustn't think of it a place Right. where certain spiritual things subsist. Right. Yes. Yeah. Now, these middle period dialogues that we're talking about now, I'm thinking particularly of the the Meno, the Phaedo, the Republic, the Symposium, the Phaedrus.
08文学成就与《理想国》的整体性
25:42
These were written by Plato when he was absolutely at the height of his powers, weren't they? And I think this is actually a good point for us to pause for a moment and think of their literary and aesthetic qualities. Why are these dialogues regarded and always have been regarded as supreme works of literary art? Why is that so? They're so alive. I mean, a lot of other philosophers have tried writing dialogues, both ancient and modern. Xenophon, Cicero, Augustine, Berkeley and Hume. But the only one of those ones I've just named who comes anywhere near Plato is Hume. And I think this is because for Hume, like Plato, it's the process of philosophical thinking that counts at least as much as the answers. With Xenophon or Berkeley, it's all too clear you're reading somebody who cares about the answers, not the process of journeying towards them.
26:39
Where Plato is concerned, we have to add his fantastic mastery of language, whether it's high-flown and imaginative descriptions or witty repartee, jokes, images. He's terribly good at making crystal clear the most difficult thoughts. You can go on adding. I mean, cuz in the end it just that he's a artistic genius as well as a philosophical one. Do you share the traditional view that his masterpiece is the Republic? Yes, I do. Why? I think because it's in the Republic more than anywhere else that he makes good his belief that every question is connected with every other.
27:21
And that the inquiry really can't stop, that even a conclusion for now leads on to the next problem. I mean, you you begin with a straightforward question, what is justice? Familiar Socratic kind of question. That becomes the question is justice a benefit to its possessor? And Socrates sets out, and this is really the task of the whole Republic to show that justice is a benefit to its possessor, indeed the thing you need most of all if you're to be happy, whereas the unjust man is the most miserable of all creatures.
27:59
But to do that, it turns out he has to give a theory of human nature. He divides the soul into three parts, and this is where he reneges on Socrates' thesis that virtue is knowledge. Virtue turns out to involve more than knowledge, that knowledge must be in control. And with the idea that knowledge is something that can and should be in control of the non-rational factors, you also get the idea, which that but now becomes possible of a of a society in which knowledge was in control. Um so, we get a whole political theory of a new, better way of life in society.
28:39
All this emphasis on knowledge being in control raises the question, what knowledge? And what is knowledge anyway, and why is it better than an opinion? So, you've got a theory of knowledge. The question, what knowledge the philosophers need in order to rule the rest of us, becomes an inquiry into the sciences. There's a lot about mathematics, a whole vision of understanding the world as it is that we live in is produced in order to support the claim that this understanding of the world as it is is what should be in charge of ourselves both individually and in society. And so, all of that growing out of this one question, what is justice?
09晚期对话：自我批判与《巴门尼德》
29:23
The inquiry really doesn't cease until death with the vision of the afterlife in the myth of Er at the end of the book. It's such a rich book that I think we can't go any further in pursuing individual strands within it. I think one must just hope that some of the people listening to the discussion will be prompted by it to go off and and have a look at it for themselves. I think we must move on now to the later dialogues of Plato. And when we do, when the move from the middle to the late period of Plato's output shows us another change of character again.
29:56
Uh suddenly the dialogues become less literary, dramatic, colorful, etc. And rather more what we might call academic or analytic. Why is that? In my view, they're not actually less dramatic. What happens is that all the effort of irony and imagery that in previous works went into depicting the people undertaking the discussion, that's all now going to the ideas and arguments themselves. And very often, it's ideas and arguments that are familiar to us from Plato's own earlier works like the Republic or the Phaedo.
30:36
Um Plato I mean, one of these extraordinary things about Plato, and he may be in the first writer in history to be able to do this, is he built up a relationship with his readers such that when writing one work, he can take it for granted that his readers have read his previous works. He can surprise them. He can make allusions. He can build up resonances through that. And what he most of all does with that is conduct a sort of public self-scrutiny of his own earlier ideas, relying on us the readers to know what they are, but saying, so to speak, "Don't get too enthused by the Phaedo and the Republic.
31:18
It was all very fine stuff, I know, but these truths, if they were, are no good to you or to me if we can't defend them against criticism. And maybe they weren't truths anyway. Maybe they were all wrong. So, let's take a few of them and subject them to really hard analytical criticism." Now, if you had to single out one of these later dialogues for particular mention, which would you choose? Well, the prime example is the Parmenides, where the tables are turned on Socrates. Socrates puts forward the theory of forms as he stated it in the Phaedo, and it's unmistakably the Phaedo. And there are various verbal connections with the Phaedo that Plato clearly expects his reader to pick up and say to himself, "Gosh, the Socrates of the Phaedo is now on the receiving end of the questions." And in fact, old Parmenides, who is talking to Socrates in this dialogue, produces a series of objections and criticisms of the theory of forms, which many philosophers from Aristotle onwards have thought were
10《蒂迈欧》：数学秩序与价值科学
32:21
quite devastating. And Plato doesn't tell us the answer. He produces the criticisms, and you're left to decide for yourself whether they're fair, unfair, and if they're fair, what you're to do about the theory of forms. One of the uh dialogues which some people think is late, others think is one of the middle period ones. That doesn't matter. Which stands aside from the rest is the Timaeus, isn't it? Partly because it actually contains more cosmology and science than it does philosophy. But mostly I think because it also contains a wonderfully poetic creation myth. Not Not Not dissimilar actually to the one in uh the Book of Genesis that I think we're all familiar with. Now, why did Plato do that? I mean, what I have in mind in asking the question is this. Do you think, for example, he believed it literally in the way one must assume, I suppose, that the ancient Hebrews literally believed in the Book of Genesis?
33:20
I myself think he did not believe it literally. The The question was controversial in ancient times. But Plato's closest associates took the view that Plato presented a narrative of the divine craftsman imposing order on chaos, meaning this to be a vivid way of presenting an analysis of what he took to be the fundamental constituents of the whole universe. He wanted to see the entire universe as a product of order imposed on disorder, and particularly mathematical order. And that of course is something very different from Genesis. The divine craftsman is embodying above all mathematical intelligence in the world at large.
34:07
So, it's a It's a poetic way of explaining the intelligibility of the world. Which has been a mystery for people actually from the earliest times until now. Right. And of course such a general proposition as a proposition that the whole universe is the product of imposing order on disorder isn't a proposition that you can prove either in general or in all its vast detailed ramifications and Plato is very well aware of this and that's another aspect I think for another reason why he puts it forward as a myth but a myth which is the guiding inspiration of something that Plato was very serious about.
34:49
That's a research program in which he enlisted at the academy all the leading mathematicians of his day. Um every advance in mathematical astronomy, mathematical harmonics, even a medical theory which shows disease and health to be a matter of the proportions between the constituent elements in the body. Each such step forward is a further proof of something Plato cared deeply about. The idea that mathematical regularities and harmonies and proportions are what's what explains things and these mathematical harmonies and proportions are for Plato the prime examples of goodness and beauty. So really this is a vision for a scientific research program which is to show that goodness and beauty are the fundamental explanatory factors in the world at large.
35:45
What you're saying now makes me wonder how all this ties up with the Republic because when you were talking about the Republic a few minutes ago one of the things you stressed was that that is in a sense a complete philosophy. Well now how does what Plato is saying in the Timaeus fit into that apparently already complete philosophy? Well I think it fits it like a hand fits into a glove in that what you have in the Republic is a sketch of a program for a scientific above all a mathematically scientific understanding of nature which Plato begins to carry out or do his share of in the Timaeus.
36:27
Uh and indeed it's the Timaeus which people went to as the statement of Plato's philosophy for a very long time. And it's really only a more recent development which has taken the Republic to be the work of Plato that you go and read. For a long time it was the Timaeus. So, what you're saying is is that all that cosmology and science in the in the Timaeus or you say Timaeus I say Timaeus. Uh taught in different schools. Uh all that cosmology and science is the working out in practice of possibilities that were canvassed in the Republic.
37:08
Yes. And the Timaeus presents itself dramatically in its introduction as a continuation in some sense of the discussion in the Republic. Um and what's more this research program as I called it that's announced in the Republic as to how astronomy should be done, how mathematical harmonic should be done was actually done. And behind that academic research program is I mean that is the starting point of many of the very greatest achievements of Greek mathematical science uh down to the astronomy of Ptolemy. Uh Ptolemy's astronomy is the ultimate descendant of the astronomy that was done in the Academy by these leading mathematicians that Plato gathered together there to show us a world where mathematical order is the governing principle that's the most important must feature most importantly in your science. And since mathematical order is the expression for Plato of goodness and beauty these sciences which show us the world as it is, objectively speaking, are simultaneously sciences of value.
11《泰阿泰德》：知识的三个定义
38:29
And that's how the metaphysical aspects of the Republic, this knowledge that the philosophers are to learn, can simultaneously be the foundation for a radical new kind of politics, because what the philosophers are learning before they come to rule the rest of us, are sciences of value as well as fact. Another of the dialogues, another of the later dialogues, that you yourself have a particular reputation for knowing about in the academic world, is the Theaetetus. Why have you specialized in that?
39:07
Because I find it endlessly exciting, and I've never plumbed to the bottom. Every time I go back back to it, there seems to be more to to discover about it. And I think many philosophers have found this is the dialogue that Leibniz translated, Berkeley wrote quite a lot about, Wittgenstein quoted. This is a dialogue which other philosophers have always found stimulating. What's it about? The question is what is knowledge, and it's a large-scale exercise of the kind of Socratic discussion that went on in the early dialogues, but on a much bigger, grander scale. Three answers are given.
39:48
Knowledge is perception. Knowledge is true judgment. Knowledge is true judgment together with an account. Each of those answers is knocked down in true Socratic style. We're not told what Plato thinks knowledge is at the end, but we have learned such an enormous amount about the problem, and about the ramifications of the problem, that we go away feeling the richer rather than the the There's no consensus to this day on what the precise nature of knowledge is, but I guess that the nearest we have to a generally accepted view is actually close to what you've just said, namely that it's perception, something that's based on direct experience, plus our capacity to provide justification for it.
40:37
Ah, you've now produced an interesting solution to the problem we're left with at the end of the dialogue, namely all of those answers have been knocked down taken separately. It's been Socrates has refuted the thesis that knowledge is perception, refuted the thesis that knowledge is true judgment, refuted the thesis that true judgment is that knowledge is true judgment with an account. And now you're suggesting that perhaps we could get a definition of knowledge by somehow putting all the elements of the three separate definitions together into one and thereby making a theory of knowledge um around a definition of knowledge.
12柏拉图主义为何延续至今
41:18
That would be a highly suitable response to this kind of dialogue, namely suggesting a definition of one's own in terms of what one's learned from the dialogue. We must, I think, bring this uh discussion to a close now, but before we do, I would like to ask you something about the influence of all this because Plato must be either the most influential or one of the two or three most influential philosophers there have ever been. Uh can you say a little, if only briefly, about what the main lines of this influence have been?
41:54
I think it's important to remember there were two philosophies opposed to materialism in the ancient world. There was materialism in the form of the atomic doctrine held by Democritus and Epicurus, and there were the anti-materialist philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, both of whom are opposed to the suggestion that everything, life, order, mind, civilization, art, nature, can all be explained as the outcome of the movements of particles of matter subject just to the laws of motion and their own nature.
42:33
Now, Aristotelianism is opposed to that sort of materialism, but Aristotelianism carries the war so far into the enemy camp that it is actually very hard to reconcile the Aristotelian philosophy with the modern scientific enterprise, which has a lot about atoms and the movements of particles of matter and all that sort of stuff. Uh and indeed, I think it was no accident that when the modern scientific enterprise got going, it got going by throwing away the Aristotelianism which had so dominated the Middle Ages.
43:06
But Platonism is much easier to um reconcile with the modern scientific enterprise. And that's why I think since the Renaissance really, Platonism has lived on after the death of Aristotelianism, because that's a philosophy which you can use or be influenced by if you're seeking to show how scientific and spiritual values can be reconciled. If you want to do justice to the complexities of things where materialism is giving just too simple and simplistic a story. And there's something very contemporary to us, isn't there, about the fact that Plato's cosmology and Plato's science is based on an essentially mathematical physics.
43:54
Yes. Thank you very much, Professor Burnyeat. Thank you.
视频总结 · 一句话概括与核心要点
一句话概括
剑桥古代哲学教授 Myles Burnyeat 与 Bryan Magee 对谈，梳理苏格拉底之死如何催生柏拉图的哲学写作，以及柏拉图从早期"苏格拉底式追问"、中期"理型论/回忆说"到晚期"自我批判"的三阶段演变，并说明柏拉图主义为何能与现代科学相容而长存。
核心要点
- 苏格拉底之死（公元前399年）是柏拉图创作的发射台。 苏格拉底不著书，只口头教学；被以"不敬神、败坏青年"罪名处死后，包括柏拉图在内的追随者纷纷写作"苏格拉底对话录"，既像在向雅典人宣告"他还在这里继续提问"，也是为其平反——他是青年的伟大教育者而非腐蚀者。柏拉图当时约31岁，活到81岁，其间创办了"学园"（大学的原型）。
- 早期对话的固定套路是"定义—反驳—困惑"。 对话者自以为懂得友谊、勇敢、虔敬等日常概念，苏格拉底通过追问揭示其并不清楚。典型案例《拉凯斯篇》：拉凯斯说"勇敢即坚忍"，苏格拉底先让他承认"勇敢总是高尚的"，再举出鲁莽或道德中性的坚忍（如金融家为赢利硬扛亏损），推出勇敢≠坚忍。Burnyeat 指出逻辑上这只证明了信念之间不一致，但苏格拉底总把它当作定义被驳倒——这暗含了"我们内在拥有分辨真伪之能力"的前提。
- 苏格拉底"无学说"的声称并不完全属实，实有两组潜在学说。 第一组：真正的伤害只有灵魂的伤害，"不义伤害施行者、正义有益施行者"（《申辩篇》《高尔吉亚篇》），柏拉图终生未放弃。第二组："美德即知识"——若勇敢就是知识，则"知道该做什么却缺乏勇气"的情形不可能存在，一切作恶皆出于无知，故"无人自愿作恶"；柏拉图后来放弃了这一说法。
- "学习即回忆"是理型论的地基。 灵魂在出生前已存在并拥有知识，苏格拉底式讨论之所以能驳倒错误答案，是因为正确答案潜藏于心。推理链：若我们对"什么是正义/美"的知识先于且独立于经验世界，那么正义、美本身也必先于且独立于一切具体的正义行为与美的事物——这就是理型论。
- "理型世界"不是另一个更完美的地方，而是"一般"与"特殊"的对比。 Burnyeat 警告"另一个世界"的说法有误导：柏拉图的对比是普遍问题（什么是正义）与此时此地（谁昨天亏待了我）之间的对比。《斐多篇》中"哲学是练习死亡"正是此意：思考普遍性时，心灵不在"此时此地"，而非身处某个天界。
- 《理想国》之所以是巅峰，在于它兑现了"每个问题都与其他问题相连"。 从"什么是正义"出发→正义是否有益于其拥有者→需要人性理论（灵魂三分，此处背弃"美德即知识"，改为知识必须统治非理性部分）→由此可设想知识统治的社会（政治理论）→什么知识？何以优于意见？（知识论）→哲学王所需的科学与数学，最后以厄尔神话的来世图景收尾。
- 晚期对话不是"不够文学"，而是把戏剧性转向思想本身。 柏拉图或许是史上第一位默认读者读过自己前作的作家，借此进行公开的自我审查。典型是《巴门尼德篇》：年轻的苏格拉底提出《斐多篇》版本的理型论，被巴门尼德一连串批评（亚里士多德以降许多哲学家认为是致命的），而柏拉图不给答案，让读者自行判断。
- 《蒂迈欧篇》的创世神话非字面信仰，而是数学化科研纲领的诗意宣言。 神圣工匠对混沌施加（尤其是数学的）秩序，与《创世记》根本不同。柏拉图在学园召集当时顶尖数学家研究数学天文学、和声学乃至"疾病即身体元素比例失调"的医学理论，每一步进展都佐证"数学规律与比例是善与美的典范"，故这些科学同时是事实科学与价值科学——这正是《理想国》中哲学家之知识能成为激进政治基础的原因。历史上很长时期人们把《蒂迈欧篇》而非《理想国》视为柏拉图哲学的代表作，其天文学传统最终延续至托勒密。
- 《泰阿泰德篇》是大规模的苏格拉底式讨论，三个知识定义相继被驳。 "知识是知觉""知识是真判断""知识是带有说明的真判断"皆被推翻，未给结论；莱布尼茨翻译过、贝克莱大量评论、维特根斯坦引用过。Magee 提出把三者要素合并（经验基础+论证能力）接近当代共识，Burnyeat 认为这正是此类对话期望读者做出的回应。
- 柏拉图主义比亚里士多德主义更能与现代科学相容，故文艺复兴后长存。 古代反唯物论（反对德谟克利特、伊壁鸠鲁原子论）有两派，亚里士多德主义"深入敌营"过甚，以致近代科学正是靠抛弃它而起步；柏拉图以数学物理为基础的宇宙观则可用于调和科学与精神价值。
结论与值得注意的细节
- 核心结论：保持"苏格拉底精神"意味着独立思考，必要时抛弃苏格拉底本人的观点——柏拉图从"美德即知识"到灵魂三分的转变正是对此的践行；"结论"只是通向下一轮探究的驿站。
- 柏拉图认为即便他知道答案，直接告诉我们也无用——答案只有经自己思考得来才有价值，这正是对话体作为哲学入门工具至今有效的原因。
- 对话体带来两个难题：多少是历史上的苏格拉底、多少是柏拉图的虚构；以及作者本人立场为何。Burnyeat 认为关键不在于分辨，而在于注意《理想国》与《普罗泰戈拉篇》的不一致处意味着思想的推进。
- 关于"讨论能否得出真理"的方法论警示：讨论至多证明结论与前提相符，前提若错则结论亦错——这一默认假设"其实很难辩护"，苏格拉底也从未辩护，《美诺篇》的回忆说正是为此补上的理论。
- 尝试写对话体的哲学家中（色诺芬、西塞罗、奥古斯丁、贝克莱、休谟），Burnyeat 认为只有休谟接近柏拉图，因为两人都同样看重思考过程而非仅仅答案。
- 柏拉图对话共二十余篇，篇幅从20页到300页不等，最著名的是《理想国》与《会饮篇》；其散文常被视为最优秀的希腊文散文。
核心句型 · 9
1. If X can be said to have had one common concern, it was …
“If all these pre-Socratic philosophers can be said to have had one common concern, it was an attempt to find universal principles”
用条件句先做谨慎限定再给出概括，学术表达中避免绝对化的常用方式。仿写：If these studies share one finding, it is that …
2. not only …, but some of …
“The ancient Greeks, who produced not only the first, but some of the greatest Western philosophers”
并列递进，从「最早」升到「最伟大」。注意省略结构：not only the first (philosophers), but some of the greatest。
3. It's the nature of these questions that …
“It's the nature of these questions that they are ones that you have to think about for yourself”
用 it's the nature of X that 引出事物的本质属性，说明「为什么必然如此」。可用于解释某类问题、任务的固有特点。
4. There's a sense in which we need to …, and a sense in which we don't.
“There's a sense in which we need to worry about this question and in a sense in which we don't”
回答复杂问题时先区分「在某种意义上是/不是」，再分别展开。是英语学术对话中标准的辩证开场。
5. the other side of the coin is …
“The other side of the coin is, of course, it's most important that we notice what's happening when …”
引出同一事物的另一面，比 on the other hand 更口语、更形象；后接完整从句。
6. where the tables are turned on X
“The prime example is the Parmenides, where the tables are turned on Socrates”
习语 turn the tables on sb 意为「反客为主、攻守易位」；此处被动式描述一贯发问的苏格拉底反被质问。
7. fits … like a hand fits into a glove
“It fits it like a hand fits into a glove”
表示两者严丝合缝地契合。常见变体 fit like a glove；可用于说明理论与实践、计划与需求的匹配。
8. It was no accident that …
“I think it was no accident that when the modern scientific enterprise got going, it got going by throwing away the Aristotelianism”
「并非偶然」——暗示因果关系而不直接断言，是学术论证中含蓄的强调方式。
9. carry the war so far into the enemy camp that …
“Aristotelianism carries the war so far into the enemy camp that it is actually very hard to reconcile”
军事比喻：反击过深反而失去回旋余地。so … that 结构表结果，适合描述「用力过猛」的情形。
生词精讲 · 111 · 按出现顺序
flourished
/ˈflɜːrɪʃt/
v.
0:37
（人物）活跃于、鼎盛于（某时期）；史学常用
of comparable caliber
phr.
0:37
水平相当的；caliber 指才干、品质
in conscious rebellion against
phr.
1:10
有意识地反叛……
first and foremost
phr.
1:10
首先、最重要的是
by word of mouth
phr.
1:45
口头地、口耳相传
come down to
phr.
1:45
（文献）流传到（后世）
derives
/dɪˈraɪvz/
v.
1:45
源自；derive from 常用于知识、词源
in his own right
phr.
2:22
凭其自身（而非依附他人）
beyond any question
phr.
2:22
毫无疑问
prototype
/ˈproʊtətaɪp/
n.
2:22
原型、雏形
prose
/proʊz/
n.
3:11
散文（相对于韵文）
acknowledged
/əkˈnɑːlɪdʒd/
adj.
3:57
公认的
traumatic
/trəˈmætɪk/
adj.
3:57
造成创伤的、极其痛苦的
spellbinding
/ˈspelbaɪndɪŋ/
adj.
3:57
令人着迷的、有魔力的
caricatured
/ˈkærɪkətʃərd/
v.
3:57
被漫画化、被夸张丑化
impiety
/ɪmˈpaɪəti/
n.
4:37
不敬神、不虔诚
tripping up
phr.
4:37
使人出错、绊倒（论辩中让人露出破绽）
unjustly
/ʌnˈdʒʌstli/
adv.
4:37
不公正地
launching pad
n.
5:29
发射台；喻起点、跳板
gadfly
/ˈɡædflaɪ/
n.
5:29
牛虻；喻不断刺激、惹人烦的批评者
expounding
/ɪkˈspaʊndɪŋ/
v.
5:29
详细阐述
momentum
/moʊˈmentəm/
n.
6:40
势头、动量
plausibly
/ˈplɔːzəbli/
adv.
6:40
貌似合理地、可信地
outgrowth
/ˈaʊtɡroʊθ/
n.
6:40
自然产物、衍生结果
interlocutor
/ˌɪntərˈlɑːkjətər/
n.
7:10
对话者、谈话对方
piety
/ˈpaɪəti/
n.
7:10
虔敬
onlookers
/ˈɑːnlʊkərz/
n.
7:10
旁观者
inadequacy
/ɪnˈædɪkwəsi/
n.
8:14
不充分、不足
consist of
phr.
8:57
由……构成
disingenuous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒenjuəs/
adj.
9:55
不真诚的、故作坦率的
unacknowledged
/ˌʌnəkˈnɑːlɪdʒd/
adj.
9:55
未被承认的、未言明的
emphatic
/ɪmˈfætɪk/
adj.
10:30
强调的、坚决的
renegues on
phr.
10:30
（通常拼 renege on）背弃、食言；此处指放弃某学说
worldly misfortunes
phr.
11:39
世俗的不幸
paradoxical
/ˌpærəˈdɑːksɪkl/
adj.
12:20
悖论的、似非而是的
temperance
/ˈtempərəns/
n.
12:20
节制（四枢德之一）
involuntarily
/ɪnˈvɑːləntərəli/
adv.
12:58
非自愿地
unvarying
/ʌnˈveriɪŋ/
adj.
13:35
一成不变的
give rise to
phr.
13:35
引起、导致
long-cherished
adj.
14:22
长期珍视的
in keeping with
phr.
14:22
与……一致、符合
throw over
phr.
14:22
抛弃（学说、计划）
the other side of the coin
phr.
15:08
事情的另一面
incompatible with
phr.
15:08
与……不相容
perpetual
/pərˈpetʃuəl/
adj.
15:41
永恒的、不断的
staging posts
n.
15:41
中途驿站；喻阶段性节点
single out
phr.
16:23
单独挑出
recollection
/ˌrekəˈlekʃn/
n.
16:23
回忆（柏拉图 anamnesis 的译法）
recesses
/ˈriːsesɪz/
n.
16:23
深处、幽隐处
bizarre
/bɪˈzɑːr/
adj.
17:06
古怪的
innate
/ɪˈneɪt/
adj.
17:06
天赋的、与生俱来的
eminent
/ˈemɪnənt/
adj.
17:06
卓越的、著名的
embodied
/ɪmˈbɑːdid/
v.
17:41
（灵魂）赋形于肉体；体现
endurance
/ɪnˈdʊrəns/
n.
17:41
坚忍、忍耐力
invariably
/ɪnˈveriəbli/
adv.
18:21
始终、一律
foolhardy
/ˈfuːlhɑːrdi/
adj.
18:21
鲁莽的、有勇无谋的
morally neutral
phr.
18:21
道德上中性的
refuted
/rɪˈfjuːtɪd/
v.
19:03
驳倒、反驳
consonant with
phr.
19:43
与……一致、协调
premises
/ˈpremɪsɪz/
n.
19:43
前提（逻辑）
vanquish
/ˈvæŋkwɪʃ/
v.
20:10
战胜、征服
latent
/ˈleɪtnt/
adj.
20:10
潜在的、隐而未发的
ties up with
phr.
20:55
与……相关联
prior to
phr.
21:47
先于
empirical
/ɪmˈpɪrɪkl/
adj.
21:47
经验的、基于观察的
incalculable
/ɪnˈkælkjələbl/
adj.
22:39
无法估量的
rehearse for
phr.
23:59
为……排练、预演
immersed in
phr.
23:59
沉浸于
subject to the qualification that
phr.
25:06
在……这一限定条件下
subsist
/səbˈsɪst/
v.
25:06
（哲学）潜存、存在
at the height of his powers
phr.
25:42
处于能力巅峰
comes anywhere near
phr.
25:42
接近、堪比（多用于否定）
high-flown
/ˌhaɪ ˈfloʊn/
adj.
26:39
（文辞）华丽的、高调的
repartee
/ˌrepɑːrˈtiː/
n.
26:39
机智的应答、妙语
makes good his belief
phr.
26:39
兑现、证实其信念；make good 意为履行
possessor
/pəˈzesər/
n.
27:21
拥有者
reneges on
phr.
27:59
背弃、放弃（承诺或学说）
non-rational
adj.
27:59
非理性的（区别于 irrational 反理性的）
strands
/strændz/
n.
29:23
（论述的）线索、股
prompted
/ˈprɑːmptɪd/
v.
29:23
促使、激发
take it for granted
phr.
30:36
视为理所当然
allusions
/əˈluːʒnz/
n.
30:36
暗指、典故
resonances
/ˈrezənənsɪz/
n.
30:36
共鸣、回响
self-scrutiny
/ˌself ˈskruːtəni/
n.
30:36
自我审视
enthused
/ɪnˈθuːzd/
v.
31:18
使热衷、使兴奋
the tables are turned
phr.
31:18
形势逆转、攻守易位
on the receiving end of
phr.
31:18
承受……、成为……的对象
devastating
/ˈdevəsteɪtɪŋ/
adj.
32:21
毁灭性的、极具杀伤力的
cosmology
/kɑːzˈmɑːlədʒi/
n.
32:21
宇宙论
imposing order on chaos
phr.
33:20
把秩序施加于混沌
constituents
/kənˈstɪtʃuənts/
n.
33:20
组成成分
intelligibility
/ɪnˌtelɪdʒəˈbɪləti/
n.
34:07
可理解性
ramifications
/ˌræmɪfɪˈkeɪʃnz/
n.
34:07
衍生后果、分支细节
enlisted
/ɪnˈlɪstɪd/
v.
34:49
征募、争取（支持）
harmonics
/hɑːrˈmɑːnɪks/
n.
34:49
和声学、谐波学
fits it like a hand fits into a glove
phr.
35:45
严丝合缝、完全契合
canvassed
/ˈkænvəst/
v.
36:27
（对可能性）探讨、征询
the ultimate descendant of
phr.
37:08
……的最终后裔
governing principle
n.
37:08
支配原则
metaphysical
/ˌmetəˈfɪzɪkl/
adj.
38:29
形而上学的
plumbed to the bottom
phr.
39:07
探到底、彻底弄清
knocked down
phr.
39:48
驳倒、推翻
consensus
/kənˈsensəs/
n.
39:48
共识
thesis
/ˈθiːsɪs/
n.
40:37
论题、命题
materialism
/məˈtɪriəlɪzəm/
n.
41:54
唯物论
the outcome of
phr.
41:54
……的结果
carries the war so far into the enemy camp
phr.
42:33
把战火烧进敌营太深；喻反击过头
reconcile
/ˈrekənsaɪl/
v.
42:33
调和、使一致
no accident
phr.
42:33
并非偶然
do justice to
phr.
43:06
公正对待、充分呈现
simplistic
/sɪmˈplɪstɪk/
adj.
43:06
过分简单化的（贬义）
理解自测 · 11 题 · 是真懂了，还是以为自己懂
1. 苏格拉底与前苏格拉底哲学家在关注点上的根本区别是什么？
前苏格拉底哲学家（泰勒斯、毕达哥拉斯、赫拉克利特等）试图找到解释整个自然的普遍原理，用今天的话说，他们既做哲学也做科学。苏格拉底则有意识地反叛这一传统，主张我们最需要学的不是自然如何运作，而是人应当如何生活，因此道德问题是首要的。这一区别在开场部分由 Magee 给出，也为后文柏拉图早期对话集中讨论勇敢、虔敬、友谊等道德概念做了铺垫。
2. 苏格拉底早期对话的典型结构是什么？以《拉凯斯篇》为例说明。
典型结构是：对话者自以为懂某个熟悉概念，苏格拉底通过追问让他和旁观者发现自己并不真正把握它，最后没有定论，但对问题的理解更深。《拉凯斯篇》中拉凯斯说「勇敢即坚忍」，苏格拉底先让他同意「勇敢总是好的」，再举出鲁莽的坚忍、金融家承受亏损等道德中性或不好的坚忍，推出勇敢不可能等于坚忍。伯尼特在「学习即回忆」一节用此例说明诘问法的逻辑。
3. 伯尼特区分了苏格拉底的哪两组学说？柏拉图对它们的态度有何不同？
第一组是「真正的伤害只是灵魂的伤害」：不义伤害作恶者本人，正义使其受益，失财失健康都不算真正的伤害；苏格拉底对此甚至声称有知识，柏拉图终身坚持。第二组是「德性即知识」及其推论「无人自愿作恶」；苏格拉底对此不声称有知识，柏拉图在《理想国》中把灵魂分为三部分后放弃了它，认为德性不止于知识，但知识必须居于主导。这一区分出现在讨论早期对话隐含学说的段落。
4. 《泰阿泰德篇》给出了知识的哪三个定义？结局如何？
三个定义依次是：知识是感觉；知识是真判断；知识是带有说明（account）的真判断。每一个都被苏格拉底式地驳倒，对话结束时柏拉图并未告诉我们知识是什么，但读者对问题及其衍生后果的理解大大加深。Magee 随后提出，当今最接近共识的看法其实是把三者合并：基于直接经验、加上真判断、加上提供辩护的能力；伯尼特认为这种「自己提出定义」正是这类对话希望引发的反应。
5. 为什么伯尼特说柏拉图「偏离」苏格拉底恰恰是「忠于」苏格拉底？
因为柏拉图为苏格拉底画像时的核心主张是：这是一个自己思考、并教别人自己思考的人，若发现珍视的结论错了就会推翻它。如果做苏格拉底的追随者意味着独立思考，那么在必要时离开苏格拉底划定的领域、修正他的学说（如放弃「德性即知识」）就是最符合苏格拉底精神的做法。伯尼特由此回答 Magee 关于「历史苏格拉底 vs 虚构苏格拉底」的疑问：在这个意义上我们不必过分担心该问题，重要的是理解探究从哪里走到了哪里。
6. 「学习即回忆」如何被解释为苏格拉底诘问法的「元理论」？推理链是什么？
伯尼特先指出诘问法的逻辑缺口：拉凯斯只是被证明信念集合不一致，逻辑上并不能确定哪一条错，但苏格拉底总是把定义当作该放弃的那条，实际上默认对方的其他回答更接近真理。要为这种做法辩护，就得假设我们内部拥有让真理战胜谬误的手段。《美诺篇》的回忆说正是这一假设的理论化：正确答案潜藏在心灵深处，不直接可及，却能在讨论中逐渐浮现，用来击倒错误答案。Magee 借此提醒：讨论只能检验一致性，前提错则结论错。
7. 从「学习即回忆」到「型相论」，伯尼特给出的推导是什么？
苏格拉底的讨论都围绕定义问题：什么是正义、美、勇敢。若这些问题的答案潜藏于我们心中，且这种知识先于、独立于我们对世界的感官经验，那么所知的对象——正义本身、美本身——也必然先于、独立于经验世界。这就是型相论的基本主张：正义、美独立于一切具体的正义行为和美的事物而存在。伯尼特强调这是从认识论前提推出本体论结论，二者「直接绑在一起」。
8. 伯尼特为何认为「型相世界」「另一个世界」这类说法具有误导性？
因为柏拉图心中的对比不是「一组具体事物」与「另一组在别处的、更完美的具体事物」，而是「特殊」与「普遍」的对比：「什么是正义」是一般性问题，不是关于此时此地的问题。《斐多篇》说哲学是练习死亡，意思是思考普遍问题时心灵已不在「此时此地」——不是身处某个更好的地方，而是根本不在任何「地方」，而是沉浸于普遍性之中。因此「world」一词应理解为「不变的普遍性之域」，而非某个精神事物存在的处所。
9. 伯尼特如何把《蒂迈欧篇》与《理想国》联系起来，并由此解释「哲学王」的正当性？
《理想国》第七卷勾勒了一个以数学为核心的科学纲领，《蒂迈欧篇》则是柏拉图亲自执行其中一部分，二者「如手套合手」。学园里的数学家在天文学、和声学乃至医学中不断发现数学比例与和谐，这些在柏拉图看来正是善与美的典范。于是描述世界「是什么」的科学同时也是关于价值的科学，事实与价值不分离。哲学家在统治之前学习的正是这种「兼具事实与价值的科学」，这就是《理想国》形而上学部分能同时成为激进政治的基础的原因。
10. 如果有人反驳说「苏格拉底自称无知只是一种虚伪的策略」，伯尼特会如何回应？
Magee 在节目中正是提出了这种「不诚实」（disingenuous）的质疑。伯尼特的回应是部分承认：确实有一些学说浮出水面，但不多。他把它们分为两组，其中关于「真正的伤害只是灵魂的伤害」那一组，苏格拉底甚至公开声称拥有知识，所以并非全然装作无知；而「德性即知识」那一组他并不声称有知识，只是在讨论中作为倾向自然浮现。可以推断伯尼特会说：苏格拉底的「无知」主要针对定义性问题，在那里他确实没有现成答案，而答案本来就不能由他人给出，这与其说是策略，不如说是对知识性质的信念。
11. 伯尼特认为柏拉图主义比亚里士多德主义更能与现代科学共存。这一判断放到今天的认知科学或人工智能领域还成立吗？
伯尼特的论据是：亚里士多德主义以目的因和形式因解释自然，与粒子运动的机械论难以调和，科学革命正是通过抛弃它起步；柏拉图主义以数学秩序为本质，容易与数学物理学共存，同时为精神价值留下位置。放到今天，这一判断在两方面仍有回响：一是 Magee 提到的乔姆斯基「天赋语法」，与「学习即回忆」的天赋论传统一脉相承；二是数学柏拉图主义至今是数学哲学的主流立场之一。但也有张力：当代 AI 的学习范式偏向经验统计而非天赋结构，唯物论式的还原解释在神经科学中占优，这恰是伯尼特所说「唯物论讲的故事太简单」的当代版本，争论并未结束。
下载便签
手机：长按图片保存
← 上一期 · NO.044MIT Godel Escher Bach Lecture 5
下一期 · NO.046 →Douglas Hofstadter: The Nature of Categories and Concepts
苏菲拉底
THE SOPHIE LAB · ASK THE BEST MINDS THE BIG QUESTIONS
内容仅供学习 · thesophielab.com