改 essay

[複製連結] 檢視: 977|回覆: 3

Katliang

名望的騎士

電梯直達

1^#

發表於 07-12-6 14:31:36 |只看該作者 |降序瀏覽大字中字小字正體化简体化

以下是在下的一位朋友所寫的文章:

   People now days are so depend on science that they only believe what they see in front of them. In Bertrand Russell article he provided an idea which indicated that certain things in our life we can’t be so sure about it. He doubted the very existence of the reality. People usually take the first hand information of what our scenes tell us and consider it. It doesn’t mean people are wrong; it’s natural to believe your scenes to be the guide of your life. But the possibility of whole world could have never exist is still there, is seen slim but it still present. The statement could be quite astonishing at the first glance due to the fact that the circumstance around us feels so real to us. Russell knew that to distinguish the difference between reality and appearance is quite hard, also hard to explain and discuss. So the discussions he had were taken carefully to ensure he got the most out of the question he asks.
         To answer the question, Russell took out the most reachable object- the table in his writing room to be the example of illustrate the flow of thoughts while answering question. The table is roughly a rectangle shape thing we all fairly familiar, but is the table I see and the table you see the same one? The table which appears in each person minds through the scenes actually varies due to the light affect, the angle people looking at and all kind of reasons. But the table difference we saw is not an important thing; the important thing is why a same table will appear different in different persons mind. The truth is that we all assume ahead what a table will look like through common sense. Unlike artists who need to present exactly the table they see, normal men just assume what a table will look like ahead. As we look at the table colors, texture, shape or even the hardness we feel through the sense pf touch, all kind of questions arise. The colour we saw is just a colour we speak out under the normal spectator view. Is table really brown? What happen if we put on red sun-glasses? So the red table we see now is different from the brown one? Questions arise when looking at texture, shape and hardness, too. We can never be sure about what the real table is, our senses is only giving us the appearance of the table. So, Russell came out an idea that the real table is not the same as the table we see, smell or touch. The real table is not known to us, but some information of it does processes to us from the table. But then two questions arise once we step into this stage. First, is there really a table or not? Second, if there is one, what sort of object is it? To make it more efficiency when discussing answer, Russell then came out with a new term- Sense-data, which mean the data we receive from our senses. He purposed that the since the data is what we receive when interact with the table. The Data must have some kind of relationship with the real table, which he called a “physical object”. And the collection of these physical objects is being called “matter”. So our former two questions get updated and transformed. The questions become, first, “Is there any such thing as we call matter?” And second, “if there is, what its nature?” By stating these new problems, Russell started to lay out what the previous philosophers had contributed to the same doubt towards the reality and appearance. Bishop Berkeley was a pioneer doubting the reality. The dialogues between Hylas and Arheists proved that there is no such things as matter, it's our minds that and ideas construct the whole world. But Russell pointed out that although Berkeley had denied the existing of matters, at the same time he also admits that there is a something there regardless of what the thing really are. The difference between Russell opinion and Berkeley ones is that Russell doubted even more deeply that is there really something exists at all, and Berkeley still thought that by the hand of god, the table is an idea of unknown force. And the philosophers which come after Berkeley held that, although the table does not exist depend seeing by us, but it does depend on seeing by minds. Like Leibniz who thought that the table is not mind but a combination of souls. All of them believe the point that there is a real table, but Russell states different. He thinks that the table is not some mind of God and neither some collection of rudimentary minds. It is something different from our sense-data, and yet causing sense-data to us whenever we are in suitable situation. Some progresses have made since Russell start doubting. We now know that, any common objects in our life are supposed to feel by our senses. But we can't be sure such objects exist or not, the only thing we can be sure is that the sense-data have some kind of relationship with the object. But more questions arise, what if the reality is not what it appear at all? Or there is any reality at all? And if the statement is true then how can we find out about that? Russell knew that the answer could never be found, but that's ok. Since we don't have the ability to answer the question, at least Philosophy let us have a chance to wonder the possibility of this weirdest doubt ever, and Russell was just another kid playing in this endless Philosophy field.
         So Russell dropped off the questions no one can answer and focus on the ones we might solve. Does table really exist? Does it still exist while I am not looking? Or it is just a dreamed-table exist in a terrible long dream that we night wake up one day after all? Maybe the whole world is just a dream, again, this statement can't be proven false, and at the same time, it can't be proven true, too. But let's not talk about the question yet. Let focus on some fixed point we already sure about. The only thing we can be sure is that whether a table exist or not, the sense-data we receive is an undoubted truth, or at least some are absolutely certain. Descartes had worked on this doubt before, but Russell had a different view to it. Descartes said that we only exist when every time we think we are or pronounced it, people doubt and get experience from it. But Russell said a different view about the self-existence, he stated that the real-self is just as hard as reach as the real table. For example, a brown table was seen by a person, this of course including something that sees the table, but not necessary defining the self. The something that saw the table can have different experience form the last moment. So, still we can't be sure about the table and ourselves, but there is still one thing we can count on, and that's our sense-data. But although we have a million ways of describing a table, table is still not a collection of our ideas. Because if it is a collection of ideas, then the table exist but the things on the table will be floating in the air due to the fact that table is just ideas. Actually, on the other hand, if everyone sees different table then why everyone know is the same table they are talking about? Thus, there must be a neutral table that everyone knows so we can communicate on that. But, is there really such a neutral objects exist? And this is yet another problem we counter. So, base on the previous statement, we have to assume that there are other people around us since they are different accumulation of sense-data. And sense-data is a sign of proving something exist. But on the other side, we could never prove the existence of other thing. Take the dream for example, dream world are just as real as our daily life. But people choose to believe that there are external world that exist because we start this belief when we start to reflect. Senses make people immediately believe there is an independent object. This, however, leave us an instinctive belief that there are objects corresponding with our senses. A world does exist, and if such a world exists, we could admit that its existence is not wholly dependent on our senses perceiving it.
         So Russell finally leaded us to the conclusion, now we know that our knowledge are build up base on our beliefs, if it get rejected, then we got nothing left. And our beliefs build up the whole system of how we should live and interact with this world. But, we could still hold a slightest doubt to this world; it is still possible that all our beliefs are wrong. But there is no reason to reject a belief. At the end, it's these beliefs have our knowledge placed orderly and systematic. But still, originally, it was Philosophy which gives us the ability to doubt and the power of knowledge. After all the doubting and questioning, people, at the end, might be able to see the great difficulty when Philosophers struggle to solve philosophical problem and h give us the knowledge which maintain the world today.

四季有趴趴熊就好了
有控來英文版喔

轉播0 分享0 收藏0

回覆使用道具檢舉

Katliang

名望的騎士

2^#

發表於 07-12-6 14:34:03 |只看該作者大字中字小字正體化简体化載入全部圖片

這是在下改過後的文章:

People now-a-days are dependent on science that they only believe in what is seen in front of them.  Bertrand Russell’s article provides an idea which indicates certain things in our life can’t be so sure of.  He doubts the very existence of the reality.  People usually take the first hand information from our senses and consider it being the truth. It’s natural to believe in senses to be the guide of your life; however the possibility of the world never existing still exists with a slim chance.  The statement could be quite astonishing due to the fact that the circumstances around us feel extremely real.  Russell knows that to distinguish between reality and appearance is quite hard to explain and discuss.  Therefore, the discussions he had were taken carefully to ensure he got the most out of the questions he asked.
      Russell took out the most reachable object, the table, to be an example for illustrating the flow of thoughts while answering questions.  The table is roughly rectangular shaped which we are familiar with, but is the table he sees and the table we see the same one? The table appears in each person’s minds through the senses varies due to the light affect, the angle people looking at and other reasons. However, the table difference we saw is not the important thing; the important thing is why the same table will appear differently in people minds. The truth is that we all assume what the table would look like using common sense. Unlike artists who need to present exactly what the table look likes, normal people just assume what a table would look like. As we look at the table color, texture, and shape, even using the sense of touch to feel the hardness, all kinds of questions arise. The color we see is just a colour we speak out under the normal spectator views. Is the table really brown? What happens if we put on sun-glasses? So is the black table we see now different from the brown one? Other questions also arise from the texture, the shape, and the hardness of the table. We can never be sure about what the real table looks like, after all our senses are only giving us the appearance of the table. Russell had an idea that the real table is not the same as the table we see, smell or touch. The real table is not known to us, but some information of it does processes to us. Now then two questions arise once we step into this stage: is there really a table or not? If there is one, what sort of object is it? To make it more efficiently when discussing answers, Russell came out with a new term, sense-data, which means the data we receive from our senses. He proposed that the since the data is what we receive when interacting with the table. The data must have some kind of relationship with the real table, which Russell called a “physical object” and the collection of these physical objects is called “matter”. Therefore our former two questions are updated and transformed. The questions become: “Is there any such thing as matter?” and “If there is, what its nature is?” By stating these new questions, Russell laid out what the previous philosophers had contributed to the same doubt towards reality and appearance.
Bishop Berkeley was a pioneer doubting the reality. The dialogues between Hylas and Arheists proved that there are no such things as matter; it's our minds and ideas that construct the whole world. However, Russell pointed out that although Berkeley had denied the existing of matters, at the same time he also admits that there is something there regardless of what the thing really are. The difference between Russell’s opinion and Berkeley’s is that Russell doubted even more deeply that is there really something exists at all, and Berkeley still thought that by the hand of god, the table is an idea of unknown force. The philosophers whom come after Berkeley held that, although the table does not exist depend seen by us, but it does depend on seen by minds. Like Leibniz, another philosopher, who thought that the table is not a mind but a combination of souls. All of them believe there is a real table, but Russell states different. He thinks that the table is not some mind of God and neither some collection of rudimentary minds. The table is something different from our sense-data, and yet causing sense-data to us whenever we are in suitable situation. We now know that, any common objects in our lives are supposed to feel by our senses, but we can't be sure such objects exist or not, the only thing we can be sure of is that the sense-data has some kind of relationship with the object. More questions arise: what if the reality is not what it appears at all? Or there is any reality at all? And if the statement is true then how can we find out about that? Russell knew that the answer could never be found, but that's ok, since we don't have the ability to answer these questions, at least Philosophy let us have a chance to wonder the possibility of these doubts ever.
         Russell dropped off the questions no one can answer and focus on the ones we might solve. Does table really exist? Does it still exist while I am not looking? Or it is just a dreamed-table exist in a long dream that we might wake up one day? Maybe the whole world is just a dream, again, this statement can't be proven false, and at the same time, it can't be proven true, too. Let's not talk about the question yet. Let’s focus on some fixed points we are already sure about. The only thing we can be sure is that whether a table exist or not. The sense-data we receive is an undoubted truth, or at least some are absolutely certain. A philosopher, Descartes, had worked on this doubt before, but Russell had a different view to it. Descartes said that we only exist when every time we think we are or pronounced it. Russell said a different view about the self-existence, he stated that the real-self is just as hard as reaching the real table. For example, a brown table was seen by a person, this of course tells us something is seeing the table, but not necessary defining the person. The something that saw the table can have different experience form the previous moment. So, still we can't be sure about the table and ourselves, but there is still one thing we can count on, and that's our sense-data. Although we have a million ways of describing a table, table is still not a collection of our ideas, because if it is a collection of ideas, then the table exist but the things on the table will be floating in the air due to the fact that table is just ideas. On the other hand, if everyone sees a different table then why everyone knows that it is the same table they are talking about? Thus, there must be a neutral table that everyone knows so we can communicate on that. Is there really such a neutral objects exist? And this is yet another question we counter. So, base on the previous statement, we have to assume that there are other people around us since they are different accumulation of sense-data. And sense-data is a sign of proving something exist. On the other side, we could never prove the existence of other things. Take the dream for example; the dream worlds are just as real as our daily lives. People choose to believe that there are external world existing, because we start this belief when we start to reflect. Senses make people believe immediately there is an independent object. This, however, leaves us an instinctive belief that there are objects corresponding with our senses. A world does exist, and if such a world exists, we could admit that its existence is not dependent on our senses perceiving it.
         Now we know that our knowledge are build up base on our beliefs, if it get rejected, then we have nothing left, and our beliefs builds up the whole system of how we should live and interact with this world. We could still hold the slightest doubt to this world; it is still possible that all our beliefs are wrong. But there is no reason to reject a belief. At the end, it's these beliefs have our knowledge placed orderly and systematic. Still, originally, it was Philosophy which gives us the ability to doubt and the power of knowledge. After all the doubting and questioning, people, at the end, might be able to see the great difficulty when Philosophers struggle to solve philosophical problem and give us the knowledge which maintain the world today.