• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Philosophia >Arguing for Wisdom in the University: An Intellectual Autobiography
【24h】

Arguing for Wisdom in the University: An Intellectual Autobiography

机译：争取大学的智慧：一部智力自传

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

For 40 years I have argued that we urgently need to bring about a revolution in academia so that the basic task becomes to seek and promote wisdom. How did I come to argue for such a vast, wildly ambitious intellectual revolution? It goes back to my childhood. From an early age, I desired passionately to understand the physical universe. Then, around adolescence, my passion became to understand the heart and soul of people via the novel. But I never discovered how to tell stories in order to tell the truth. So, having failed to become a physicist, and failed to become a novelist, I studied philosophy at Manchester University and then, in 6 weeks of inspiration, discovered that the riddle of the universe is the riddle of our desires. Philosophy should be about how to live, and should not just do conceptual analysis. I struggled to reconcile the two worlds of my childhood ambitions, the physical universe and the human world. I decided they could be reconciled with one another if one regarded the two accounts of them, physics and common sense, as myths, and not as literal truths. But then I discovered Karl Popper: truth is too important to be discarded. I revised my ideas: physics seeks to depict truly only an aspect of all that there is; in addition, there is the experiential aspect of things—the world as we experience it. I was immensely impressed with Popper’s view that science makes progress, not by verification, but by ferocious attempted falsification of theories. I was impressed, too, with his generalization of this view to form critical rationalism. Then it dawned on me: Popper’s view of science is untenable because it misrepresents the basic aim of science. This is not truth as such; rather it is explanatory truth—truth presupposed to be unified or physically comprehensible. We need, I realized, a new conception of science, called by me aim-oriented empiricism, which acknowledges the real, problematic aims of science, and seeks to improve them. Then, treading along a path parallel to Popper’s, I realized that aim-oriented empiricism can be generalized to form a new conception of rationality, aim-oriented rationality, with implications for all that we do. This led on to a new conception of academic inquiry. From the Enlightenment we have inherited the view that academia, in order to help promote human welfare, must first acquire knowledge. But this is profoundly and damagingly irrational. If academia really does seek to help promote human welfare, then its primary tasks must be to articulate problems of living, and propose and critically assess possible solutions—possible actions, policies, political programmes, philosophies of life. The pursuit of knowledge is secondary. Academia needs to promote cooperatively rational problem solving in the social world, and needs to help humanity improve individual and institutional aims by exploiting aim-oriented rationality, arrived at by generalizing the real progress-achieving methods of science. We might, as a result, get into life some of the progressive success that is such a marked feature of science. Thus began my campaign to promote awareness of the urgent need for a new kind of academic inquiry rationally devoted to helping humanity create a wiser world.
机译：40年来，我一直在争辩说，我们迫切需要在学术界进行一场革命，以使基本任务成为寻求和促进智慧的基础。我是如何为如此巨大，野心勃勃的知识革命辩护的？这可以追溯到我的童年。从很小的时候起，我就非常渴望了解物理世界。然后，在青春期左右，我的激情开始通过小说来了解人们的内心和灵魂。但是我从来没有发现如何讲故事以讲真话。因此，由于没有成为物理学家，也没有成为小说家，我在曼彻斯特大学学习了哲学，然后在6个星期的启发下，发现宇宙之谜就是我们欲望的谜题。哲学应该是关于生活的，而不只是进行概念分析。我努力调和童年野心的两个世界：物质世界和人类世界。我认为，如果人们将它们的两个解释，即物理学和常识视为神话，而不是直言不讳的真理，那么它们就可以彼此和解。但是后来我发现了卡尔·波普尔（Karl Popper）：真理太重要了，不容忽视。我修改了自己的想法：物理学试图真实地描绘所有事物的一个方面。此外，还有事物的体验方面，即我们所体验的世界。我对波普的观点印象深刻，波普的观点是科学在进步，而不是通过验证，而是通过对理论进行的野蛮尝试而取得了进步。他对这种观点形成批判理性主义的概括也给我留下了深刻的印象。后来我想到：波普尔的科学观是站不住脚的，因为它歪曲了科学的基本目标。事实并非如此。相反，这是解释性的真理，事实是真理必须统一或在物理上可以理解。我意识到，我们需要一种新的科学概念，我称之为以目标为导向的经验主义，它承认科学的真实，有问题的目标，并试图加以改进。然后，沿着与波普尔平行的道路，我意识到以目标为导向的经验主义可以被概括为一个新的理性概念，即以目标为导向的理性，对我们所做的一切都有影响。这导致了新的学术探究概念。从启蒙运动中，我们继承了一种观点，即学术界为了帮助促进人类福祉必须首先获得知识。但这是非常有害的，不合理的。如果学术界确实确实寻求帮助促进人类福祉，那么它的首要任务必须是阐明生活问题，并提出和批判性地评估可能的解决方案，包括可能的行动，政策，政治计划，生活哲学。对知识的追求是次要的。学术界需要在社会世界中促进合作性理性问题的解决，并需要通过利用以目标为导向的理性来帮助人类改善个人和机构目标，而这种目的是通过归纳科学的实际进步方法而得出的。结果，我们可能会实现某些渐进的成功，而这正是科学的显着特征。因此，我的运动开始了，以提高人们对迫切需要进行一种新型的学术研究的认识，这种研究在理性上致力于帮助人类创造一个更明智的世界。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号