论文部分内容阅读
本文原载东德《哲学》杂志1982年第5期。文章的前半部分首先对赖辛巴赫作了简单的介绍。赖辛巴赫(1891—1953),德国经验哲学家,柏林学派的中心人物,同维也纳学派关系密切,毕生致力于促成哲学家同科学家的结合。第一次大战前后,他的政治态度是进步的,参加大学生的社会主义运动,叫自己的孩子们就读于共产党领导的学校,等等。他最初的著作就是论述大学生运动的,他抨击在资产阶级社会里科学被滥用,指出在资本主义制度下问题不可能得到解决,必须按社会主义原则彻底地改造社会。文章认为,虽然赖辛巴赫的社会主义观在许多方面尚与科学社会主义不符,但“可以毫无疑问的断定,这是一种以进步运动为指南的尝试,它要毫无保留地同那些传统的社会条件、观点与价值决裂,一切要重新开始”。文章接着叙述了柏林大学哲学院1925年6月就赖辛巴赫提出的授课申请进行激烈争论的详细情况,文章认为这些情况构成了有关自然科学、哲学和政治三者之间相互关系的富有代表性的陈述。柏林大学在讨论中注意的重点是他的政治活动。例如数学家路德维希·比尔贝巴赫对他的著作《大学生与社会主义》进行了攻击,说“这样的著作丧失了一位学者在措辞时所应有的那种切实性和恰当性。”文章指出,这种“措辞的恰当性”所掩盖的思想原来就是要求科学家充当历史上早已过时的那种政治制度的代表。事实证明,被误认为是不问政治的科学其实并非不问政治,相反,它倒是证明了自己是阶级统治的工具。激烈争论的另一个焦点是就赖辛巴赫对哲学的理解所作的分析。争论中所涉及的不仅是科学和政治的一般关系,而且还有哲学家的作用及其在党派政治斗争中的职能,特别还有哲学和自然科学的关系。保守派首先举出了两点作为自己的论据,即:赖辛巴赫完全改变了康德先验论的含义,并且“运用概率概念”来反对“施图波夫关于期望之主观性的观点”。文章的后半部分从赖辛巴赫所递申请论文谈起,对他的哲学思想作了述评,文章这一部分的内容如下。
This article originally contained the East German “Philosophy” magazine in 1982 fifth issue. The first half of the article begins with a brief introduction of Reichenbach. Reichenbach (1891-1953), a German philosopher of experience and a central figure of the Berlin School, is closely associated with the Vienna School and dedicated his life to bringing together philosophers and scientists. Before and after World War I, his political attitude was progressive, participating in the socialist movement of college students, calling his children to attend the school run by the Communist Party, and so on. His first book, which dealt with the student movement, criticized the abuse of science in the bourgeois society. He pointed out that under the capitalist system problems can not be solved and social transformation must be thoroughly carried out in accordance with the principles of socialism. The article argues that although Reichenbach’s concept of socialism is in many ways inconsistent with scientific socialism, “it goes without saying that it is an attempt to guide the progressive movement, unreservedly to those The traditional social conditions, the viewpoint and the value of the break, everything should start again. ” The article goes on to describe the details of the heated debate in Reichinbach on the applications for faculty presented by the Faculty of Philosophy in Berlin University in June 1925, which are considered as constituting a representative representation of the interrelationships among the natural sciences, philosophy and politics The statement. The focus of discussion at the University of Berlin was his political activity. For example, the mathematician Ludwig Bierberbach attacked his book, “College Students and Socialism,” saying that “such a work has lost the kind of practicality and appropriateness that a scholar should have when it comes to wording.” The article points out that this idea of the “properness of the wording” turns out to require scientists to act as representatives of the long-outdated political system in history. It turns out that the science that is mistakenly considered as politics does not in fact ask about politics, on the contrary, it proves itself as a tool of class rule. Another focus of the heated debate is an analysis of Reichenbach’s philosophical understanding. The debate involved not only the general relationship between science and politics, but also the role of philosophers and their role in the political struggles of the parties, with particular regard to the relationship between philosophy and the natural sciences. The conservatives first cite two arguments as their own argument: Reichenbach completely changed the meaning of Kant’s transcendentalism and “used the notion of probability” to oppose “Stubov’s view of the subjectivity of expectation.” The second half of the essay begins with the application paper from Reichenbach and comments on his philosophical thoughts. The content of this part of the essay is as follows.