A History of Western Philosophy: From the Pre-Socratics to Postmodernism Ch.1

WHAT IS “WESTERN” PHILOSOPHY? #

Let me begin with the last of these questions. I shall not try to say in general what it means to be “Western” or what constitutes “the West” in human history. Sometimes the best way of defining something is to “point” at it, to give what philosophers call an “ostensive¹” definition. I shall try to give such a description of Western philosophy as a particular intellectual movement that began in Ionia (particularly in Miletus) in the sixth century BC among Greek-speaking inhabitants of what is today Turkey. This movement flourished in the centuries that followed, particularly in Athens in the thought of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In the “Hellenistic²” world the movement spread throughout the Middle East and later helped shape the Roman Empire, particularly in places such as Alexandria and Rome itself. This movement continued among Islamic, Christian, and Jewish thinkers during the medieval period in Europe and the Middle East, and developed further in Europe in the “modern period” under the influence of such thinkers as René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Benedict Spinoza. The eighteenth century saw in Europe the triumph of “the Enlightenment” in the work of such thinkers as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. In the nineteenth century, Western philosophy was shaped by such movements as idealism and positivism, and in the twentieth century split into two strands: “analytic” philosophy (dominant in the English-speaking world, including North America, Australia, and New Zealand) and “continental” philosophy, with strong roots in France and Germany.

先从最后一个问题说起。我无意泛泛界定何为 “西方”，也不深究人类历史中 “西方世界” 的构成范畴。有时界定事物最直观的方式便是直指其所指，也就是哲学上所说的实指定义。我将以此方式界定西方哲学：它是一场特定的思想思潮，发轫于公元前六世纪的爱奥尼亚地区（尤以米利都为核心），兴起于今土耳其境内的说希腊语族群之中。此后数百年间这一思潮蓬勃发展，尤以雅典为盛，涌现出苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德等思想巨匠。进入希腊化时代，该思想体系传遍中东地区，继而深刻影响罗马帝国，在亚历山大港与罗马城等地落地生根。中世纪时期，它在欧洲与中东地区的伊斯兰、基督教及犹太教思想家之间传承延续；步入近代欧洲，又在勒内・笛卡尔、托马斯・霍布斯、约翰・洛克、本尼迪克特・斯宾诺莎等哲人的推动下持续发展。十八世纪，大卫・休谟、伊曼努尔・康德等人的思想成就，标志着启蒙运动思潮在欧洲走向鼎盛。十九世纪，唯心主义、实证主义等思潮重塑西方哲学格局；到了二十世纪，西方哲学分化为两大主流分支：一是分析哲学，盛行于英美及澳新等英语国家；二是欧陆哲学，主要植根于法德思想传统。

In speaking of Western philosophy I simply want to refer to the particular tradition described in the last paragraph. It is important to recognize that other regions of the world, such as China and India, have ancient and profound philosophical traditions of their own, and hence Western philosophy is far from the whole of philosophy. Despite this fact, what is called Western philosophy today is a global phenomenon, in that the thinkers and questions that constitute this intellectual tradition are solidly represented in universities throughout the world. This means that the era of Western philosophy as an identifiable, more or less self-contained intellectual movement may be over or at least nearing an end, since all the world’s great philosophical traditions are now in conversation with each other.

谈及西方哲学，我仅指代上文中所述的这一特定思想传统。必须明确，中国、印度等地区同样拥有源远流长、底蕴深厚的本土哲学体系，因此西方哲学绝非哲学的全部。尽管如此，如今所谓的西方哲学已然成为一种全球性思想潮流，构成这一思想体系的一众哲人及其探讨的核心议题，在世界各地高校中都占据着稳固地位。这也意味着，西方哲学作为一套独立成型、自成体系的思想思潮，其专属发展时代或许已然落幕，抑或行将终结。当今世界各大主流哲学传统，已然开始相互交流、彼此交融。

To say this is to look forward, however, and as one of the great Western philosophers (Søren Kierkegaard) memorably said, life is lived forward but must be understood backward. Since this work is history and not prophecy, it will take this backward view and focus on Western philosophy as a discrete intellectual tradition. Throughout the long history of Western philosophy, geographical isolation meant that most of the great Western philosophers knew little about the traditions of India and China, or other regions of the world. Although Western philosophy is only one of the world’s great philosophical traditions, it clearly has enormous historical importance in the development of what is today called “the West” and “modernity” and is thus well worth historical study in its own right. Most of the time, when I speak of “philosophy” in this book I shall mean “Western philosophy.” I shall not always use the qualifier Western for the sake of conciseness, but the adjective should always be understood as implied, except in contexts where philosophy in a more global sense is being discussed.

不过这般说法已然是放眼未来。正如西方哲学巨匠索伦・克尔凯郭尔那句名言：人向来向前生活，却只能向后回望领悟人生。本书旨在梳理历史而非预言未来，故将秉持回溯视角，把西方哲学视作独立完整的思想传统来论述。在西方哲学漫长的发展历程中，受地域阻隔所限，绝大多数西方先贤对印度、中国及其他地区的思想体系知之甚少。西方哲学虽只是世界几大主流哲学流派之一，但它对今日所谓西方文明与现代性的形成有着举足轻重的历史意义，本身极具史学研究价值。行文之中，若无特殊说明，书中提及的 “哲学” 均特指西方哲学。为行文简洁，我不会次次冠以 “西方” 这一限定词，除探讨广义世界哲学范畴外，其余语境下均默认此意。

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? #

Even if we are content with identifying Western philosophy as a particular historical tradition, one would like to be able to say something about the nature of philosophy itself. What does it mean to do philosophy or to be a philosopher? These are also very difficult questions. In fact, there is no agreed-on view of what counts as philosophy. Different philosophers have decidedly different views of philosophy, and thus the question “What is philosophy?” is itself one of the philosophical questions philosophers argue about. Some philosophers believe that philosophy is a quest for timeless truths that are universally valid. Marxist philosophers believe that philosophy reflects the class conflicts that are grounded in various economic systems of production. Some “materialist” or “naturalist” philosophers see philosophy as something that must be based on the progress of science. Many more such views could be described.

即便我们暂且将西方哲学界定为一种特定的历史思想传统，人们依旧想要弄清哲学本身的本质究竟为何。研习哲学、成为一名哲学家，究竟意味着什么？这同样是极难作答的问题。事实上，学界至今尚未对哲学的定义达成统一共识。不同哲学家对哲学的理解截然不同，故而 “哲学是什么” 本身，就是哲学家们一直争论不休的哲学命题。部分哲学家认为，哲学是追寻永恒普世真理的探索之旅；马克思主义哲学家则主张，哲学反映着植根于各类生产经济体系之中的阶级矛盾；还有一众唯物主义与自然主义哲学家提出，哲学必须建立在科学发展的基础之上。诸如此类的观点不胜枚举。

Even if we limit ourselves to philosophy as it has been understood in the West, it seems pretty clear that the meaning of the term has undergone some significant changes during the course of its long history. Philosophy is today considered to be a separate subject of study, distinguished from mathematics, the natural and social sciences, theology³, and from such subjects as literary criticism. Among the early Greek practitioners of philosophy, however, it included all these subjects and much more besides. Philosophy is, etymologically⁴ speaking, the love of wisdom, and the early Greek philosophers seemed to have thought that the search for wisdom encompassed a quest for all kinds of knowledge.

即便我们仅局限于西方语境下的哲学定义，也不难发现，在漫长发展历程中，哲学一词的内涵已然发生诸多重大转变。如今哲学已是一门独立学科，与数学、自然科学、社会科学、神学以及文学评论等领域泾渭分明。但在古希腊早期哲人眼中，哲学囊括了以上所有学问，范畴远比现今更广。从词源来看，哲学本义是爱智慧。古希腊早期哲学家认为，追寻智慧，就意味着探求世间一切知识。

This early view of philosophy is dimly preserved in the contemporary university, which still awards the degree “doctor of philosophy” as the highest achievement of many fields, including the sciences. This older view of philosophy can also be understood if we recognize that although philosophy is now a separate “discipline” or “subject,” philosophical questions are not the exclusive property of professional philosophers. When scholars or researchers in various fields ask basic or foundational questions about those fields, they continue to do philosophy. The literature professor who asks how it is that a text can mean something is really doing philosophy, as is the physicist who asks whether the models he or she uses to make sense of mathematical equations that describe the physical world are in some sense “real.”

这种早期的哲学观念在如今的高校中仍留有隐约痕迹：诸多学科乃至理学领域的最高学位，依旧被授予哲学博士学位。我们亦可如此理解这种传统观念：即便如今哲学已是独立学科，但哲学问题绝非专业哲学家的专属领域。各行各业的学者研究者，一旦开始探寻本领域的基础性、根本性问题，其实就是在进行哲学思考。文学教授思索文本何以具备表意内涵，是在做哲学研究；物理学家探究用以解读物理世界数理方程的各类模型，是否具备某种层面上的实在性，同样也是在钻研哲学。

The early Greek philosophers began by asking questions about the natural world that we today would describe as the beginnings of natural science. They can therefore be described as early scientists as well as philosophers. However, they were not just concerned with seeking theoretical knowledge. They were also intensely concerned with practical questions that bear on the meaning of human life and how it should be lived. Most of the early philosophers were concerned above all with questions about the good life: What is happiness? What does it mean to live well? They did not see wisdom merely as what we today would call scientific knowledge of nature; rather wisdom encompasses an understanding of human life and how it should be lived. Although the early Greek thinkers were doubtless driven in part by sheer⁵ intellectual curiosity, even their speculations about the cosmos were partly connected to a desire to understand human existence. Human persons are obviously part of the natural world, and some account of their place in it is necessary to have a view of how human life should be lived. Whatever else wisdom may be, it surely encompasses an understanding of human life and how it should be lived.

古希腊早期哲人最初探究自然万物，这些问题如今看来正是自然科学的思想源头，因此他们既是早期哲学家，亦是初代科学家。但他们探求的不止是理论知识，更深切关注关乎人生意义与处世之道的现实议题。彼时绝大多数哲人最看重何为完满生活：幸福的本质是什么？怎样才算活得有价值？在他们眼中，智慧绝不局限于如今所说的自然科学知识，更包含对人生百态与处世准则的通透体悟。诚然，纯粹的求知欲是他们思索的动力之一，即便对宇宙万物的思辨，也暗含着探寻人类生存本质的诉求。人类本就是自然界的一份子，唯有认清自身在天地间的定位，才能确立正确的人生活法。总而言之，智慧无论还涵盖何物，必定离不开对人生真谛与处世之道的参悟。

However, when one looks at contemporary philosophy, it is easy to doubt that philosophy continues to be a search for wisdom in this sense. Professional philosophers as a group seem no wiser than other folks, and it is far from clear that people who study philosophy academically necessarily become wiser by doing so (although I believe that the study of philosophy still makes such growth in wisdom possible). Those points may not undermine the claim that philosophy is a quest for wisdom, since to say that one is looking for something is by no means an assurance that one will find it. However, the problem is not just that contemporary philosophy has failed to find wisdom. Rather, it appears that a great deal of contemporary philosophy has little interest in the subject. To be sure, ethics remains a branch of philosophy, and there are philosophers who continue to debate questions about the good life. But much of philosophy today seems focused on technical questions that have, at best, a remote link to the kind of wisdom that would help a person to live well. To say this is by no means to imply that the study of contemporary philosophy is without value, but it does raise questions about whether that academic subject called “philosophy” has much in common with what the Greeks called philosophy.

然而放眼当代哲学，人们很容易质疑它是否还在秉持这种意义上的智慧求索。职业哲学家群体看起来并未比常人更具智慧，从事学术哲学研究也未必就能使人增长智慧（尽管我坚信研习哲学仍有达成这种成长的可能）。这些观点并不能推翻 “哲学是对智慧的探求” 这一论断，毕竟心怀求索，不代表必定得偿所愿。但问题不止在于当代哲学未能寻得智慧，更在于当下诸多哲学研究已然对此兴致寥寥。诚然，伦理学仍是哲学分支，仍有学者持续探讨何为良善生活。但如今大部分哲学研究聚焦于专业性理论问题，与助人修身立世的人生智慧相去甚远。这番言论绝非否定当代哲学的研究价值，只是不禁引人深思：如今学界所称的 “哲学”，与古希腊人心中的哲学，究竟还存有几分共通内核。

Despite these differences, and the worries they raise, I believe that one can see in contemporary philosophy the descendant of something that started with the Greeks, and that has wisdom as its chief end. However, in order to grasp what they have in common, I believe one must begin with the earlier, Greek conception, and use that conception as a guide for understanding the later history of what we call “philosophy.” Philosophy is a quest for wisdom, and wisdom is, at least in part, practical. A wise person would be a person who understands what it is to be a human being and how human life should be lived. That in turn requires an understanding of the world in which humans live. The person who is looking for the right things can see these concerns as present in the whole history of Western philosophy, but it is easier to do that if one’s conception of philosophy is shaped by the early Greeks, in whom the quest for wisdom as including an understanding of the good life stands out so vividly.

尽管存在种种差异与由此引发的种种思索，我依旧认为，当代哲学仍是古希腊思想一脉相承的延续，其终极宗旨始终是追寻智慧。而想要厘清古今哲学的共通内核，就必须先溯源至古希腊时期的哲学理念，并以此为脉络，梳理后世哲学的发展历程。哲学本就是对智慧的探求，而智慧至少在一定层面上具有实践性。智者能够洞悉人之为人的本质，通晓人生应当如何度过，这又需要对人类所处的现实世界拥有清晰认知。只要秉持正确的研究视角，便能发现这类思想内核贯穿于整部西方哲学史。而若以古希腊哲学思想为认知根基，探寻智慧、求索理想生活这一鲜明宗旨便会格外清晰，也更易读懂后世哲学的发展脉络。

That what we call “philosophy” has changed over time in the West is not surprising if we think of philosophy, as I think we should, as a human cultural creation and not a “natural kind.” To say this is not to say philosophy could be just anything. We would not make ditchdigging philosophy just by calling it “philosophy.” There are, as we shall see, a set of enduring questions, as well as strategies for finding answers to those questions, that characterize Western philosophy, despite the significant changes in our understanding of philosophy that have occurred. These questions define what are usually regarded as the core areas of philosophy: metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology⁶.

倘若我们认同哲学是人类文化的造物，而非天然既定的固有范畴，那么西方哲学历经岁月不断演变也就不足为奇了。但这并非意味着万事万物都能随意冠上哲学之名。就算将挖沟劳作称作哲学，它也终究成不了哲学。不难发现，尽管人们对哲学的认知几经巨变，西方哲学始终存在一系列恒久不变的核心命题，以及探寻答案的固有思维范式，这也是其本质特征所在。这些经典问题划定了哲学三大核心研究领域：形而上学、伦理学与认识论。

Metaphysics comprises the questions philosophers ask about the nature of reality. Philosophy began when some of the ancient Greeks began to speculate about the true nature of the world: What is the basic “stuff ” of which the natural world is composed? Is reality one interconnected whole, or is it composed of many discrete entities? Is material reality composed of indivisible particles (atoms) or is it continuously divisible? Contemporary philosophers still ask recognizable versions of these questions as well as many more that ancient philosophers asked: Do humans have souls? What happens to humans after death? Are there divine beings? What are the gods like, and how are they related to humans and the natural world?

形而上学囊括了哲学家们围绕实在本质展开的各类探讨。哲学的发端，始于古希腊先贤对世界本原的思索：构成自然界的最基本物质是什么？实在是相互联结的统一整体，还是由诸多独立个体组成？物质世界是由不可再分的微粒（原子）构成，还是能够无限分割？时至今日，当代哲学家依旧在探讨这类经典命题，同时也延续着古人提出的诸多追问：人是否拥有灵魂？人死后归于何处？世间是否存在神明？神性究竟为何，神灵又与人类及自然界有着怎样的关联？

Ethical questions were, as I have already said, clearly urgent for the early Greek philosophers as well. They were well aware of the differences in ethical beliefs and customs between various Greek city-states as well as the differences between Greeks and Persians. In light of those differences they asked whether ethical ideals are simply a human cultural construction or whether some ethical norms were rooted in nature or perhaps in some transcendent reality and thus have a kind of objectivity. What does it mean to live well, and what should the goals of human life be, both for the individual and for the community?

正如前文所言，伦理问题对古希腊早期哲学家而言同样十分紧要。他们清楚地察觉到，古希腊各城邦之间、希腊人与波斯人之间，在伦理观念与社会习俗上都存在诸多差异。基于这些差异，他们开始思索：道德理想是否只是人类文化的人为产物？抑或是部分伦理准则根植于自然本性，甚至源自某种超验实在，因而具备客观普适性？何为良善的生活？个人与社会群体又该确立怎样的人生目标？

As divergent answers quickly appeared to these metaphysical and ethical questions, epistemological issues naturally came to the fore as well, for enduring disagreement naturally leads to questions about one’s convictions. Epistemology is the part of philosophy that asks questions about truth, knowledge, and beliefs. What is truth? Can truth be known, and if so, how is knowledge possible? When are humans justified in their beliefs? What counts as a justification for a belief? Quite early some philosophers were led to skepticism about human knowledge, and this in turn led to renewed attempts to develop various accounts of how knowledge could be attained.

面对这些形而上学与伦理层面的问题，很快涌现出截然不同的答案，认识论相关议题也随之应运而生。长久的观点分歧，自然会让人开始反思自身所持有的信念。认识论这一哲学分支，专门探讨真理、知识与信念相关问题：何为真理？真理能否被认知？若能，知识何以成立？人们持有某种信念在何种情况下才算合理？信念成立的依据又是什么？早在哲学发展初期，部分哲学家便对人类的认知能力产生怀疑，进而催生了诸多全新理论，试图阐释人类获取知识的可行途径。

In pursuing all these questions, philosophers from the beginning have relied on reasoning, or intellectual reflection, to gain answers. Even those philosophers, termed empiricists, who believe that all knowledge ultimately comes from sense experience have given rational arguments for this view. Obviously, different philosophers have different views of human reason and its limits, but all have done philosophy by reasoning. It is not surprising then that most philosophers have regarded logic, understood as an account of what constitutes good reasoning, to be a central tool for answering the questions of philosophy.

从古至今，哲学家在探寻这些问题时，始终依靠理性思辨来寻求答案。即便是主张一切知识最终皆源于感官经验的经验主义者，也同样会运用理性论证来佐证自身观点。不同哲人对人类理性及其边界看法各异，但所有人都凭借理性开展哲学思考。因此不难理解，绝大多数哲学家都将逻辑学——即研究有效推理规律的学问——视作解答哲学问题的核心工具。

William James⁷ famously defined philosophy simply as “an unusually obstinate⁸ effort to think clearly.” This definition may not quite work as it stands, since we need to say something more about the kinds of questions philosophers think about, but if we specify that the questions philosophers think about are the basic or foundational questions that arise for all humans or that are posed by the fundamental assumptions made by the special disciplines, James’s definition is probably as good a definition as one can find.

威廉・詹姆斯有句经典定义：哲学不过是力求清晰思考的执着努力。这个定义单独来看尚不够完备，还需点明哲学家所思考问题的范畴。但若限定其探讨的是人类共通的根本性问题，或是各专门学科底层预设所衍生出的基础议题，那这一定义已然十分贴切。

WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY?#

The last thing I want to do in this introduction is to say something about what I view as a history of philosophy. The English term history is famously ambiguous, in that we use it to refer to the series of events that really occurred in the past (as in “that event was history and not fiction; it really happened”), but also to the narratives that humans construct to represent those historical events. What is the goal of these narratives? In the nineteenth century, some historians claimed that history should see itself as a kind of objective science, which tries to describe historical reality “as it really happened.”1 Others saw this as an impossible goal. Historians cannot replicate the past, since historical narratives are always selective and written from a particular point of view. The second group stresses that all historians have biases, personal and political and religious concerns that may motivate and shape the stories about the past that they tell.

在本篇导论的最后，我想谈谈我所理解的哲学史内涵。英文里 history 一词向来语义含混，它既指代真实发生过的过往史实，譬如 “此事为史实而非虚构，确然发生过”；也可指人们为还原历史事件所撰写的记述文本。这类历史记述的写作目的究竟为何？十九世纪部分史学家主张，历史学应当成为一门客观科学，力求如实还原历史原貌。但也有人认为这一目标根本无法实现。史学家无法复刻往昔岁月，历史叙事本就带有取舍倾向，且始终立足于特定视角完成撰写。后者强调，所有史学家都难免存有偏见，个人立场、政治倾向与宗教观念，都会左右并塑造其笔下的过往记述。

I believe that the consensus among historians today is that there is something right about both of these perspectives. Good historians strive for honesty; they want to know and describe what really happened, and they seek to base their conclusions on the best evidence and reasoning they can. However, it is equally true that no historian occupies what philosopher Thomas Nagel⁹ has called “the view from nowhere.” Everyone who writes a history sees the world, including that part of the world he or she wants to write a history about, from a particular perspective. A Marxist historian will understand the French Revolution very differently than a libertarian conservative. An atheist historian who thinks that religious beliefs are rooted in ignorance and superstition is likely to understand the decline of religious belief among intellectuals in Europe after the Enlightenment as due to an increase in reasoning ability and scientific knowledge, while a religious thinker such as Kierkegaard will see the same development as explained by a decline in the emotional and imaginative capacities of European intellectuals.

我认为如今史学界普遍达成共识：上述两种观点皆有其合理之处。优秀的史学家秉持求实态度，力求探明并还原史实，依托可靠史料与严谨论证得出结论。但无可否认，没有哪位史学家能拥有哲学家托马斯・内格尔所说的无偏中立视角。任何历史书写者，都会带着自身特定立场去看待世界与笔下史事。马克思主义史学家与自由保守派学者，对法国大革命的解读截然不同。秉持无神论、认为宗教源于愚昧迷信的学者，会将启蒙运动后欧洲知识阶层宗教信仰式微，归因于理性思维与科学认知的提升；而克尔凯郭尔这类宗教思想家，则会将同一社会现象，解读为欧洲知识分子情感与精神想象力日渐衰退所致。

How should we respond to this “situated” character of historians? We should not, I think, despair of truth. It is true that all humans are historically situated individuals, and that it is impossible to shed all of one’s particularities. However, the various perspectives we bring to the issues are not always distorting lenses; sometimes they may be just what is needed to bring the truth into clearer focus. It is also the case that historical truth is often complex; historians who seem to be disagreeing may be emphasizing different aspects of a fuller story. We should not respond to our situatedness by pretending to be completely “neutral” or “objective.” Rather, those who tell a historical story should honestly recognize and make clear the perspectives they bring to the issues, making it easier, both for themselves and for their audiences, to decide what might be distortion and what might be insight.

我们该如何看待史学家这种身处特定立场的特质？我认为我们不必因此对探求真理感到绝望。诚然，所有人都身处特定历史境遇之中，无法彻底抛开自身独有的主观特质。但我们看待问题的各类视角，并非总会歪曲事实，有时反而能让真理愈发清晰。历史真相本身往往错综复杂，看似观点相悖的史学家，实则可能只是侧重阐释完整史实里不同的侧面。我们不必为了摆脱立场局限，刻意伪装成绝对中立、全然客观的模样。相反，书写历史之人应当坦然认清并直白阐明自身立场，如此一来，无论自身还是读者，都更易分清何为主观偏颇，何为独到真知。

A recognition that no one occupies the view from nowhere does not mean that one cannot care about truth, or seek evidence that will be convincing, even to people who approach the questions from very different personal perspectives. However, even though a commitment to honesty and fairness in this sense is important, it does not eliminate the importance of a particular point of view. All historians recognize the importance of honestly considering evidence, but points of view may shape how evidence is interpreted and weighed; they certainly have a lot to do with what a historian considers important and therefore chooses to select or omit.

承认无人能拥有绝对中立的超然视角，并不意味着人们便不再追寻真理，也不再搜集足以令人信服的论据——即便是对于立场迥异的研究者而言亦是如此。诚然，秉持这般求真务实、秉持公允的态度至关重要，但这并不能抹杀特定研究视角本身的价值。所有史学家都认同应当如实考究史料，可视角往往会左右人们对证据的解读与权衡方式，更直接决定史学家心中何为重点，进而决定史料的取舍与删减。

There are two facts about me that are relevant to understanding the perspective I shall bring to the history of Western philosophy. The first is that I am a philosopher, and I think of the history of philosophy not simply as the history of ideas, but as a part of philosophy itself. Part of the motivation for studying the history of philosophy is to make progress in philosophy. I do not simply want to describe what various philosophers claimed, but to evaluate their ideas as well, and I see such evaluations as providing part of the explanation for the way the story has gone. Part of the explanation for the development of new views in philosophy is intellectual dissatisfaction with other ideas. One cannot tell the story of philosophy properly without paying attention to the arguments and criticisms philosophers make of each other, and this cannot be done in a completely impartial way. Sometimes the best explanation for why a philosophical view is rejected is that it is a bad theory, based on inadequate reasoning. If I were simply doing what I would call the history of ideas, I might focus predominantly on the social and economic causes of various philosophical theories, but such concerns would not necessarily help us gain insight into the validity of those theories. (Although a recognition of such causes can give us insight into why philosophers accepted views that now seem obviously false and even repugnant¹⁰; it is instructive here to look at what some of the great philosophers have said about women, race, and slavery and see how their views may have been shaped by their own social situations.)

想要理解我研究西方哲学史所持的立场，需先了解我的两点个人背景。其一，我本身是一名哲学研究者，在我看来，哲学史绝非单纯的思想史，而是哲学本身的有机组成部分。研习哲学史，初衷之一便是推动哲学本身向前发展。我不只是单纯罗列历代哲学家的思想主张，更会对这些思想作出评判，并且我认为这类评判本身，也是梳理哲学发展脉络的重要依据。哲学新观点的诞生，往往源于人们对既有思想体系的思辨不满。若想完整厘清哲学发展历程，就必须梳理哲学家之间的论证交锋与思想批判，而这一过程本就无法做到绝对中立。一种哲学思想遭到摒弃，究其根本，往往是其理论本身存在缺陷、论证存在疏漏。倘若我只是撰写纯粹意义上的思想史，或许会着重从社会、经济层面剖析各类哲学理论的成因，但这类研究视角，未必能帮助我们判断这些理论本身是否成立。当然，追溯思想成因也自有其价值：它能解释为何昔日哲人会信奉如今看来明显谬误、甚至违背常理的观点。纵观诸多哲学大家在女性地位、种族议题、奴隶制度上发表的言论，便能清晰看出其所处的社会环境，对其思想观念造成了深刻影响，这一点也颇具借鉴意义。

The second important fact about me is that I am a Christian believer. Part of my interest in philosophy stems from a conviction that philosophy is a valuable tool for a Christian who wants a deeper understanding of his or her faith, and who wants a deeper understanding of the Western world that has been partly shaped by philosophy. The history of Western philosophy is particularly interesting for a Christian because that history often intersects with the history of theology and the history of various religions, especially the three Abrahamic faiths: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Although I want to tell the history of philosophy, that history cannot be sharply separated from the history of religion, just as it cannot be sharply separated from the history of science or the history of art. In my account of philosophy, I shall therefore pay special attention to the links between philosophy and religious faith. For people of biblical faith, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps 111:10; Prov 9:10), and so it is plausible to think that such faith may have something important to contribute to philosophy as well. Philosophy has something valuable to offer people of faith, but faith may in turn provide something that philosophy badly needs.

我的第二个重要身份背景是：我是一名基督徒。我对哲学产生兴趣，部分源于这样一种信念 —— 对于想要深入理解自身信仰、并洞悉深受哲学塑造的西方世界的基督徒而言，哲学是极具价值的思想工具。西方哲学史对基督徒而言尤为意义深远，因为其发展历程常与神学发展史、各类宗教发展史交织相融，尤以亚伯拉罕三大一神信仰为主：基督教、犹太教与伊斯兰教。若要梳理哲学史，便无法将其与宗教史截然割裂，正如它也不能脱离科学史、艺术史独立看待。因此在梳理哲学发展脉络时，我会格外重视哲学与宗教信仰之间的内在关联。秉持圣经信仰的人素来坚信：敬畏耶和华是智慧的开端（《诗篇》$\textcolor{#548dd4}{111:10}$，《箴言》$\textcolor{#548dd4}{9:10}$）。由此不难想见，宗教信仰亦能为哲学研究带来重要启发。哲学能为信众提供宝贵思想养分，而信仰反过来也能补足哲学发展所需的精神内核。

Some may think that this perspective will limit the value of the work, on the grounds that philosophy and religion ought to be clearly distinguished. I agree that philosophy and religion must be distinguished, but I will argue that a history of Western philosophy will be a better and truer history if it takes full account of the relations between philosophical thought and religious belief. Some contemporary philosophers may have little interest in religion, but virtually all the great thinkers of the ancient, medieval, and even modern European worlds were intensely interested in questions about God and spiritual realities. A history of philosophy that neglects this fact will be a poorer history, just as a history of philosophy that neglected the connections between philosophy and scientific developments would be a poorer history.

有人或许认为这种研究视角会削弱本书价值，理由是哲学与宗教本应泾渭分明。我同样认同二者必须加以区分，但我主张，若能充分兼顾哲学思想与宗教信仰之间的关联，所撰写的西方哲学史会更加完善、更加贴合史实。当代部分哲学家或许对宗教兴致寥寥，但几乎所有古代、中世纪乃至近代欧洲思想巨匠，都极度关注有关神明与精神实在的相关议题。倘若一部哲学史忽视这一事实，其内容必然有所欠缺，这就如同抛开哲学与科学发展之间的关联来撰写哲学史，同样会存在巨大缺憾。