C. H.古德温

The immediate reaction of some sharp， informed readers with a particular philosophical background to the heading of this article will be a denial of any necessary， logical relationship between becoming an autonomous person and being a philosopher. They will say philosophy is concerned with the meaning of meaning， and not with providing a framework of beliefs and values by which to live.

As one professional philosopher has put it， “Philosophy… is above all concerned with the clarification of the concepts and propositions through which our experience and activities are intelligible…philosophy is not a speculative super-science that tries to answer questions about some ultimate reality; it is not the pursuit of moral knowledge; it is not the integrator of all human understanding into a unified view of man， God and the universe…”

The heading of this article， however， is based upon the popular understanding of the word “philosophy” as indicating a persons basic attitudes towards life in general. W.F. Deedes1 can speak of “the private philosophy that we all have tucked away inside us somewhere”; to which we can turn for inner strength in times of great stress. It can also be used to denote an approach towards a particular activity. Thus the wise， old deputy-head of the first primary school in which I taught advised me， “The best thing you can do in this profession is to make up your own philosophy and stick to it.” The wise teacher， therefore， is his own person with his own philosophy of education！ He has his own distinctive way of educating children based on what he thinks is of value.

The more I pondered the words of the deputy-head the more I realized they implied three important things about the nature of philosophy. They implied philosophy was： a highly personal， distinctive activity; a testimony to the kind of person we are since it expresses our basic values and beliefs; a consciously articulated and coherent system of beliefs and values informing and guiding our conduct as individuals.

The academic philosophers I was conversant with at the time claimed to stand within the historic tradition of the great philosophers of the past which they seemed to date back to Socrates. One of them said， “What distinguishes the philosopher is the type of second-order questions which he asks. These are basically the same questions asked by Socrates at the beginning—the questions ‘What do you mean？ and ‘How do you know？” I was familiar with Platos accounts of Socrates philosophical activity in his dialogues The Republic and The Phaedrus， and extended my knowledge to include some of Platos other works. To my relief I discovered that the three characteristics of philosophy I had identified in the deputy-heads advice were also present in Socrates.

Philosophy was a highly distinctive activity for Socrates. He became dissatisfied with the science of his day because it failed to throw light on what he chiefly wanted to know by its insistence on explaining everything mechanistically. So， says one scholar， Socrates， “turned his back on all such speculations and resolved to work out a new method for himself.”

Socrates philosophy revealed what kind of person he was; Socrates was a deeply religious man. He devised his own method of philosophical enquiry in response to the divine oracle of Delphi which declared him to be the wisest man in Greece. Philosophy became for Socrates the means of discovering his own ignorance. As he said in his defence to the citizens of Athens， “the truth probably is， citizens， that it is God who is really wise， and that he means in this oracle to say that human wisdom is worth little or nothing.”

Philosophy informed and guided the conduct of Socrates. He also said in his defence to the citizens of Athens， “the greatest good to man is to discourse daily about virtue and those other matters about which you have heard me speak and examine both myself and others， and that a life without examination is not worth living.”

Is it legitimate to claim that one can be ones own person， and that the most rewarding way of attaining independent selfhood is through the practice of philosophy？ Is it possible to be a philosopher at all without proper training in the subject？ R.G. Collingwood2 said， “Anyone who thinks， and is determined to let nothing stop him from thinking is philosopher…” Other professional philosophers disagree. It is not enough to be a thoughtful person. All too often， when people first begin to reflect upon their experience， their thoughts are confused， contradictory and inconsistent. This is because they tend to pursue their reflections without much method and without a clear understanding of what constitutes a valid chain of reasoning.

One can play football without having to be a professional footballer. One can think without having a knowledge of logic. It may be uninformed， undisciplined， and emotionally clouded by ones prejudices but even professional philosophers with all their sophisticated methods of analysis and reasoning despair of reaching final， incontrovertible conclusions. A. J. Ayer once wrote， “In philosophy one never quite knows where one is， one never quite knows when one has got a problem solved—whether one has got the problem properly posed. This I think makes one despair at times， but then one goes on， and perhaps one gets something one thinks may be right， and then one feels better again.”

One requires certain moral characteristics to become a philosopher which are more important than philosophical techniques. The most important is the courage to accept responsibility for taking ones life into ones own hands. This involves the need to form and reform ones self-consciousness in response to new knowledge and new experiences. The philosopher has the courage to accept the anxiety involved in forsaking where necessary ideas which are familiar landmarks of his or her identity. One needs to be honest with oneself in facing up to unpleasant discoveries otherwise one will distort ones reflections to suit ones wishes.

So， be your own person—be a philosopher！

一些敏锐、见多识广、有特定哲学背景的读者对这篇文章题目的即时反应将会是，否认在成为一个自主的人和成为哲学家之间存在任何必然的逻辑关系。他们会说，哲学关注的是意义中的意义，而不是提供一套指导我们生存的信念和价值观。

正如一位职业哲学家说的那样：“哲学……首先是对概念和命题的澄清，這些概念可以解读我们的经验和活动……哲学不是一门推理的超级科学，试图回答关于一些终极的现实问题;它不是对道德知识的追求;不是把所有的人类知识整合为对人类、上帝和宇宙的统一观点……”

然而，文章的标题是基于对“哲学”这个词的普遍理解之上，表明人们大体上对待生活的基本态度。W.F.迪兹提及我们所有人藏在心里某处的私人哲学，当我们处于巨大压力下的时候，我们会从中找到内心的力量。它也可以用来表示对某一特定行动的处理方法。因此，我曾任教的第一所小学的那位睿智的老副校长曾对我提出忠告说：“在这行里你能做的最好的事情就是构建你自己的哲学并持之以恒。”因此，睿智的老师是做自己，有自己的教育哲学！他基于自己尊崇的理念，用自己独特的方式教育孩子。

我越琢磨副校长说的话，就越意识到它们说明了关于哲学本质三样重要的东西。它们说明了哲学是：高度个人化、与众不同的活动;证明我们是什么样的人，因为它表达了我们基本的价值观和信念;一套有意识地清晰表述出来的信念和价值观体系，影响并指导我们作为个体的行为。

当时我熟悉的学院哲学家声称他们会坚持过去那些伟大哲学家的历史传统，他们似乎认为这一传统可追溯到苏格拉底。其中一个哲学家说：“哲学家的不同之处在于他提出的那种二阶问题。这些问题基本跟苏格拉底最初提出的问题一样——‘你是什么意思？和‘你是怎么知道的？。”我对柏拉图在《理想国》和《斐多篇》对话中关于苏格拉底的哲学活动的记录非常熟悉，并扩充了我的知识，了解了柏拉图的其他著作。令我感到欣慰的是，我发现，蕴含在副校长的忠告里面的这三种哲学特征也包含在苏格拉底的对话中。

在苏格拉底看来，哲学是一种非常独特的活动。他对当时的科学很不满意，因为它坚持机械地解释一切，没有阐明他主要想知道的事情。因此，一位学者说，苏格拉底“对这些推测都置之不理，而决心为自己想出一种新的方法”。

苏格拉底的哲学反映了他是一个什么样的人;他是一个笃信宗教的人。他想出了自己的探究哲学的方法，作为对声称他是希腊最有智慧的人的德尔菲神谕的回应。对苏格拉底来说，哲学是发现自己的无知的手段。正如他在辩护时对雅典公民说：“公民们，事实是，真正有智慧的是上帝，在这个神谕中他的意思是说，人类的智慧没有什么价值或根本没有价值。”

哲学影响和指导苏格拉底的行为。他在对雅典公民发表自辩时说：“对人最大的善是每天谈论美德和你们听我说过的其他事情，审视自我和他人，未经审视的生活不值得过。”

我们可以做自己，以及获得独立自我的最有价值的方式是通过哲学实践，这种说法是否有道理呢？有没有可能完全没有经过适当的学科训练而成为一位哲学家？R.G.科林伍德说：“任何去思考、决心不让任何事情阻止他思考的人都是哲学家……”其他的专业哲学家则不同意。做一个有思想的人是不够的。通常，当人们第一次开始反思自己的经历时，他们的思维是混乱的、自相矛盾的和前后不一的。这是因为他们没有什么方法来进行反思，也不清楚什么是有效的连串推理。

我们可以踢球，而不必成为职业足球运动员;我们也可以思考，而不必具有逻辑知识。这样看起来似乎知识不足、缺乏训练以及在情感上也被自己的偏见所混淆，但是，即使是专业哲学家运用所有成熟的分析方法和推理，也不指望得出最终的、无可辩驳的结论。A.J.艾耶尔曾写道：“在哲学中，我们永远不知道自己在哪里，永远不知道什么时候解决了一个问题——是否正确地提出了问题。我想，这一点有时让人绝望。但接下来，他继续下去，就有可能会得出他认为也许正确的某种结论，然后感觉又好一些。”

成为一位哲学家需要具备某些比哲学方法更重要的道德特征。而最重要的是有勇气承担掌控自己生命的责任。这需要形成和重塑我们的自我意识，从而对新知识和新体验作出反应。哲学家有勇气接受焦虑，这种焦虑因某些时刻必须摒弃一些观念而致，而那些观念就是他或她为人熟知的身份标志。面对令人不快的发现，我们必须对自己诚实，否则，我们就会歪曲自己的思考以满足自己的意愿。

所以，做你自己——成为一位哲学家！              □