{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","title":"理性的权威","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787532763450","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","id":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","uuid":"6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","title":"理性的权威","normalized_title":"理性的权威","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787532763450","isbns":["9787532763450"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":171,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E7%90%86%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E6%9D%83%E5%A8%81","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/6254e091-fea7-4580-ad1e-08ddba85762d/search"},"page":{"printed_page":69,"pdf_page":77,"physical_index":77,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"678c5f7389243c3c15c1f06f1ff6a5e495f84b653aaeb391b73938b11f1eb1cd"},"chapter":"The Last Word理性的权威","content":"这暗示着在无说服力的先天判断之中存在有一个层次。这个观念是这样的：如果我们相信上帝G，并且G提供了为什么我对我们而言看来是不可设想的一个解释，即使这并非是事实，那么将我看成是一种可能，这就是合理的，尽管我们并不能设想这是如何发生的。这也使得我们如何会怀疑情态直觉的普遍解释成为有意义的。这一情况下的麻烦在于，我的不可设想性是如此地坚定不移以致(通过换质位律)削弱了对G的信念：认为上帝应对算术的真理性负责是不可能的，如果这暗示着二四得八可能是假的。(附加上上帝也可能使换质位律不再有效，这也没有什么帮助!)从结构的角度看，笛卡儿的这一论证恰恰是与那些试图将逻辑奠基于心理学或生活形式的人所提供的论证完全一样的，两者的错误也是一样的。①\n\n无论对此提出怀疑是如何合理，就如同对在推理过程的名义之下人们进行活动的有效性进行怀疑一样，这些怀疑自身肯定包含某些推理过程。而且当我们力图使自己与越来越多的思想保持距离时，我所谈到的优先权就将从我们所依赖的基础中显现出来。从策略的角度看，我觉得作为对怀疑论的一个恰当回应，笛卡儿是正确的，尽管他在那些值得我们怀疑的东西的范围上定得太宽了一点。②思想的某些形式是不可能被可理解地怀疑的，因为它们渗透到了关于任何事物的每一个思考之中。\n\n四 逻 辑\n\n069\n\n①DerekParfit向我指出同样的批评也可用于关于上帝是道德真理的渊源这一思想。对此提出批评的论证应当来自道德内部。\n\n②一个保持持久兴趣的论题是：他的以下思想是否正确：我们可以合理地去怀疑所有关于外部世界的经验性命题。参见Donald Davidson,“ACoherenceTheory of Truth and Knowledge\",载ErnestLePore, ed. ,TruthandInterpretation(Blackwell,1986)。","previous_page":68,"next_page":70}