火球法师
精华
|
战斗力 鹅
|
回帖 0
注册时间 2019-10-1
|
本帖最后由 埃奈西德穆 于 2019-11-26 07:09 编辑
第一点不全如此。Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in the Age of Neuroscience. 神经科学的框架内的“存在主义”。
Gabriel的书评把这本书黑得挺惨（主要是第一章与前言）：Do they realize that pretty much no one in the history of philosophy ever doubted that humans are animals? Are they aware that Hegel, for example, in his philosophy of nature in the Encyclopedia argues that there can be no "Geist" (no mindedness) without neural circuits, which was, of course, a known fact for centuries before the introduction of the very idea of the humanities or "Geisteswissenschaften," as they are called in my neck of the woods? Neuroexistentialism is supposed to be a consequence of such insights as "the universe is causally closed, and the mind is the brain." (p. 8) However, how do Caruso and Flanagan know these extraordinary facts given that science is nowhere near having settled such large metaphysical issues? Neuroscience, as I know it from my own collaborations with neuroscientists, has not discovered that the mind is the brain. For one thing, it is not. At most, mental processes are associated with certain subsystems of the brain……
The list of historical mistakes and caricatures in the present volume is too long to be discussed in detail. Let me just mention: 1) The idea that before Darwin and Freud there was such a thing as the "humanistic image" which denied that humans are animals, maintained that we have a soul and an afterlife, claimed that meaning is transcendental (what does this even mean?), etc. (p. 6) Are the authors of these words aware of the fact that not all humans were fundamentalist Christians before Darwin and Freud? Do they know that the "humanistic image" is a figment of their imagination? 2) Similar problems come to the fore in Patricia Churchland's musings about "religion" (p. 27) and the history of language. Her "argument" against a religious origin of morality involves the claim that "Hebrew" is a form of writing and a restriction of religion to the two cases of hunter-gatherer "'folk' religions" (p. 27) on the one hand and "Christianity or Judaism" on the other hand. No actual piece of evidence is offered for the view that religion can only be the origin of morality if it has a "place for God-the-Law-Giver-and-Punisher." (p. 27) Religion and biblical monotheism happen not to be identical. The same applies to religiously grounded morality and the Ten Commandments. （参Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews）
|
|
沪公网安备 31010702007642号 )
发表于 2019-11-25 22:38
角度刁钻，把我问懵了。
lz我好奇很久了，也不止你一个有这问题，为什么在讨论这种形而上学的问题时要用这么抽象的语言，让我有比读政治课本还强烈的头疼
没关系啦，就是每次看到这种类型的讨论，就感觉形而上学的问题需要用形而上学来回答，但我不仅回答不上来，连想都想不利索，看到这种掉书袋就头疼……即使你首楼可能只是想讨论acg里有赴死的觉悟和伟业又确实对死亡本身有发自本性的恐惧的例子罢了……这么说我只是想说为什么这问题要加这么多奇怪的定语
还有，魅族夜间模式在鹅球上算怎么回事啊，你为了防剧透所做的努力，在我这里全部木大！
你换个思路呢 与死亡无关 谁能没有一点点后悔 
