All posts by hevangel

PHIL201 Epistemology 認知論(上)

認知論是哲學的基礎必修課,差不多任何高年級的哲學課,也要求對認知論有所認識。認知論涉及任何有關知識的課題,例如,何謂知識?人如何獲的知識?如何判定知識的真偽?這科的上半部主要教古典認知論,用Bertrand Russell的The Problems of Philosophy為課本,輔以其他古典哲學家的原文作為參考。下半部教二十世紀認知論的重大發展,課本是那些文集式的磚頭書,不過其實可省錢不用買課本,因為那些近代重要哲學的論文也可在網上找到。

在未探討知識的構成和分類,第一課先要確定最基礎的一點,知識存在並且人類可以獲取。絕對懷疑論者,認為人只能憑五官感覺,獲取思想以外的資訊,但感覺並不是真實,所以外在世界亦不是真實的存在,那亦沒有所謂的知識,人不可能知道任何東西。正常人大慨會認為他們的瘋子,不過讀哲學可不能馬虎,先要解決外在世界如何存在的問題。至於用什麼理論去解釋世界的存在,可直接影響上層不同認知理論的架構,從要發展出關於知識的不同觀念。

「我思故我在」是笛卡兒Descrates的名句,便是其中一個回應懷疑論者的途徑。縱使我可以懷疑世界的存在,但我不可能懷疑我自已的存在。從這個可以肯定的最基礎點出發,笛卡兒一層層地推演,讓新的知識建立在已確定的知識上,從而構成一個完整的知識系統。基礎論的知識系統中,知識是線性推論,所有知識向上推論,最終歸向最核心的無誤真理。在核心的基礎知識是不證自明,不需要亦不能問其何解。Russell亦是一個基礎論者,他認為最核心的知識便是理性本能。人藉著理性本能,把不協調的知識修正,令知識合乎現實的觀測。Moore用另外一個方法去證明外在世界是存在,他認為感覺存在於思想之外,那有感覺存在便足以論實外在世界存在,而每個人也一定感覺到自已的雙手,存在於思想之外的雙手便是外在世界存在的證明了。

外在世界的存在證明了,但外在世界的本質又是什麼呢。我們對物件的感覺,與物件本身的本質,並不一定有任何關連。傳統的科學現實主義,認為物件本質產生我們對物件的感覺,知識便是兩者關係的理論。反現實主義認為知識局限於人對物件的感覺,人並不可能物件的本質的任何東西。結構現實主義,則認為知識並不是關於物件本身,而是關於物件與物件間的關係。Russell認為知識可以分為兩類,第一類是直接從感覺獲取的知識,第二類是從描述中獲取的知識,通過描述把已知的知識,組合申延成為新的知識。

觀測現實能產生理論,理論構成知識,可是休謨Hume指出了用歸納法的問題,便是不論有多少個觀測結果,在邏輯上還是不能推論出理論,在事實與理論兩者之間,有一道深不可越鴻溝。牛頓從蘋果掉下來推論出地心吸力,我們可以用地心吸力的理論,去推論出蘋果會掉下來,但邏輯上並不能保證下一個蘋果一定會掉下來。若出現一個浮空的蘋果,便足以改寫地心吸力的理論。Russell解決歸納問題的方法,便是認為世界是有規律並有一至性,而這些最基礎的定律,是不證自明的基礎知識。接受普世規律也是人類的理性本能之一,因為若不接受定律存在的話,人根本不可能生存。

康德Kant整合了Descrates和Hume的理論,提出理性為先驗性知識的說法,人類的想思受與生俱來的理性笵疇的規畫,人要通過理性,才能把經驗轉化為知識。Russell認為數學和邏輯屬於先驗性知識,不論在任何可能存在的世界,先驗性知識也是必然為真,而其他後驗性知識,則基於我們這個世界的觀測。他認為抽像的物件也是真實,儘管它們並不存在於任何時空之內,先驗性知識便是所有存在與不存在之物的關係。

參考資料:
1. The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell
2. Human Knowledge Classical and Contemporary Approaches 3rd Edition, Paul K. Moser and Arnold Vander Nat.

竊聽風雲2

零九年「竊聽風雲」叫好叫座,去年原班人馬再度攜手合作,拍攝「竊聽風雲」第二集。雖然電影的名稱一樣,但這套並非續集或前傳,而是全新的故事,只是起用上集的三大男主角。竊聽在今集只是契子,主線是吳彥祖向地主會復仇的故事。上集古天樂佔的戲份最多,今次劇本倒像是為吳彥祖度身訂造,仿如他才是這齣電影的正印主角。劉青雲當被害者的角色,全套戲他也處於被動位置,沒有機會好好發揮。古天樂更仿如路人,他飾演的警察不過巧合地牽涉進竊聽案,最後還淪為吳彥祖的一隻棋子。

今集的故事比上集遜色,上集故事講人性的決擇,今集則成為一個平舖直述的三流復仇故事。地會主左右股壇呼風喚雨,但說到低不過是一班經紀,在枱底做不見得光的交易,不是大奸大惡之徙。吳彥祖竊聽他們的犯罪證據,要狹他們去對付殺父仇人同叔。電影表面上好像是鬥智,但吳彥祖的計劃漏洞太多,要在電影世界所有事情都巧合地發生才會成功。吳彥祖從地主會手上賺了二億,其實原本還可以全身而退,再從想辨法對付同叔,反正他一開始的目標也只是同叔一個人。地主會眾人被黑吃黑,最多只會怨自已技不如人,還不至於動殺意。他們要動手殺人一早就動了,不用請吳彥祖回去慢慢傾計。如果同叔的手下不是埋屍而是燒屍,沒有證據告同叔殺人,那吳彥祖便死得冤枉了。又或者同叔只是示意手下開槍,那同叔依然可以逍遙法外。

電影的高潮位力度不同,以買入五千萬死股為主軸,只見劉青雲在白板不停寫數字,古天樂走來走去放股票,欠缺劇情拉緊然後爆開的快意。中段加插無謂的動作場面,讓這套電影變成既非動作片亦非劇情片的四不像。不是說那場電單車追逐突破不好看,只是如果吳彥祖有這樣好身手,便不用靠施展小聰明來復仇了,大可以用跟踨器找出同叔別墅的位置,然後單人匹馬殺入去報仇。再不然讓那幾台手機自爆或放毒氣好了,不用把自已當餌去引同誘叔殺人,然後寄望古天樂能夠破案拉人。

二零一一年我就只是看了這齣港產片了。這齣電影除了劇本先天不足外,其他方便尚算可以一看,其他港產片連吸引我看的興趣也沒有,大慨香港電影業已經玩完了。拍不出好的電影,又怎能怪觀眾不看呢?二零一二年,希望不會成為我看零港產片的一年吧。

提外話,古天樂電影中完全沒有表情,面部僵硬只有眼睛能動,看來關於他打Botex打壞了面部肌肉的傳聞大慨是真了,抑還是他的演技仍然如此爛。

Why French Parents Are Superior

In general, I don’t like the French way of thinking, but this is one of the few things that I actually like about French. Kids should learn how to cope with boredom on his own. Give less immediate attention to your kid and he will learn patient.

By PAMELA DRUCKERMAN, Feb 4 2012, The Wall Street Journal
While Americans fret over modern parenthood, the French are raising happy, well-behaved children without all the anxiety. Pamela Druckerman on the Gallic secrets for avoiding tantrums, teaching patience and saying ‘non’ with authority.

Pamela Druckerman’s new book “Bringing Up Bebe,” catalogs her observations about why French children seem so much better behaved than their American counterparts. She talks with WSJ’s Gary Rosen about the lessons of French parenting techniques.

When my daughter was 18 months old, my husband and I decided to take her on a little summer holiday. We picked a coastal town that’s a few hours by train from Paris, where we were living (I’m American, he’s British), and booked a hotel room with a crib. Bean, as we call her, was our only child at this point, so forgive us for thinking: How hard could it be?

We ate breakfast at the hotel, but we had to eat lunch and dinner at the little seafood restaurants around the old port. We quickly discovered that having two restaurant meals a day with a toddler deserved to be its own circle of hell.

Bean would take a brief interest in the food, but within a few minutes she was spilling salt shakers and tearing apart sugar packets. Then she demanded to be sprung from her high chair so she could dash around the restaurant and bolt dangerously toward the docks.
Journal Community

Our strategy was to finish the meal quickly. We ordered while being seated, then begged the server to rush out some bread and bring us our appetizers and main courses at the same time. While my husband took a few bites of fish, I made sure that Bean didn’t get kicked by a waiter or lost at sea. Then we switched. We left enormous, apologetic tips to compensate for the arc of torn napkins and calamari around our table.

After a few more harrowing restaurant visits, I started noticing that the French families around us didn’t look like they were sharing our mealtime agony. Weirdly, they looked like they were on vacation. French toddlers were sitting contentedly in their high chairs, waiting for their food, or eating fish and even vegetables. There was no shrieking or whining. And there was no debris around their tables.

Though by that time I’d lived in France for a few years, I couldn’t explain this. And once I started thinking about French parenting, I realized it wasn’t just mealtime that was different. I suddenly had lots of questions. Why was it, for example, that in the hundreds of hours I’d clocked at French playgrounds, I’d never seen a child (except my own) throw a temper tantrum? Why didn’t my French friends ever need to rush off the phone because their kids were demanding something? Why hadn’t their living rooms been taken over by teepees and toy kitchens, the way ours had?
French Lessons

Soon it became clear to me that quietly and en masse, French parents were achieving outcomes that created a whole different atmosphere for family life. When American families visited our home, the parents usually spent much of the visit refereeing their kids’ spats, helping their toddlers do laps around the kitchen island, or getting down on the floor to build Lego villages. When French friends visited, by contrast, the grownups had coffee and the children played happily by themselves.

By the end of our ruined beach holiday, I decided to figure out what French parents were doing differently. Why didn’t French children throw food? And why weren’t their parents shouting? Could I change my wiring and get the same results with my own offspring?

Driven partly by maternal desperation, I have spent the last several years investigating French parenting. And now, with Bean 6 years old and twins who are 3, I can tell you this: The French aren’t perfect, but they have some parenting secrets that really do work.

I first realized I was on to something when I discovered a 2009 study, led by economists at Princeton, comparing the child-care experiences of similarly situated mothers in Columbus, Ohio, and Rennes, France. The researchers found that American moms considered it more than twice as unpleasant to deal with their kids. In a different study by the same economists, working mothers in Texas said that even housework was more pleasant than child care.
Previous Saturday Essays

Rest assured, I certainly don’t suffer from a pro-France bias. Au contraire, I’m not even sure that I like living here. I certainly don’t want my kids growing up to become sniffy Parisians.

But for all its problems, France is the perfect foil for the current problems in American parenting. Middle-class French parents (I didn’t follow the very rich or poor) have values that look familiar to me. They are zealous about talking to their kids, showing them nature and reading them lots of books. They take them to tennis lessons, painting classes and interactive science museums.

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive. They assume that even good parents aren’t at the constant service of their children, and that there is no need to feel guilty about this. “For me, the evenings are for the parents,” one Parisian mother told me. “My daughter can be with us if she wants, but it’s adult time.” French parents want their kids to be stimulated, but not all the time. While some American toddlers are getting Mandarin tutors and preliteracy training, French kids are—by design—toddling around by themselves.

I’m hardly the first to point out that middle-class America has a parenting problem. This problem has been painstakingly diagnosed, critiqued and named: overparenting, hyperparenting, helicopter parenting, and my personal favorite, the kindergarchy. Nobody seems to like the relentless, unhappy pace of American parenting, least of all parents themselves.
[BEBEjump] Nicolas Héron for The Wall Street Journal

Delphine Porcher with daughter Pauline. The family’s daily rituals are an apprenticeship in learning to wait.

Of course, the French have all kinds of public services that help to make having kids more appealing and less stressful. Parents don’t have to pay for preschool, worry about health insurance or save for college. Many get monthly cash allotments—wired directly into their bank accounts—just for having kids.

But these public services don’t explain all of the differences. The French, I found, seem to have a whole different framework for raising kids. When I asked French parents how they disciplined their children, it took them a few beats just to understand what I meant. “Ah, you mean how do we educate them?” they asked. “Discipline,” I soon realized, is a narrow, seldom-used notion that deals with punishment. Whereas “educating” (which has nothing to do with school) is something they imagined themselves to be doing all the time.

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don’t pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep. It is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat. (French kids consistently have three meals a day and one snack around 4 p.m.)

One Saturday I visited Delphine Porcher, a pretty labor lawyer in her mid-30s who lives with her family in the suburbs east of Paris. When I arrived, her husband was working on his laptop in the living room, while 1-year-old Aubane napped nearby. Pauline, their 3-year-old, was sitting at the kitchen table, completely absorbed in the task of plopping cupcake batter into little wrappers. She somehow resisted the temptation to eat the batter.

Delphine said that she never set out specifically to teach her kids patience. But her family’s daily rituals are an ongoing apprenticeship in how to delay gratification. Delphine said that she sometimes bought Pauline candy. (Bonbons are on display in most bakeries.) But Pauline wasn’t allowed to eat the candy until that day’s snack, even if it meant waiting many hours.
Earlier

When Pauline tried to interrupt our conversation, Delphine said, “Just wait two minutes, my little one. I’m in the middle of talking.” It was both very polite and very firm. I was struck both by how sweetly Delphine said it and by how certain she seemed that Pauline would obey her. Delphine was also teaching her kids a related skill: learning to play by themselves. “The most important thing is that he learns to be happy by himself,” she said of her son, Aubane.

It’s a skill that French mothers explicitly try to cultivate in their kids more than American mothers do. In a 2004 study on the parenting beliefs of college-educated mothers in the U.S. and France, the American moms said that encouraging one’s child to play alone was of average importance. But the French moms said it was very important.

Later, I emailed Walter Mischel, the world’s leading expert on how children learn to delay gratification. As it happened, Mr. Mischel, 80 years old and a professor of psychology at Columbia University, was in Paris, staying at his longtime girlfriend’s apartment. He agreed to meet me for coffee.

Mr. Mischel is most famous for devising the “marshmallow test” in the late 1960s when he was at Stanford. In it, an experimenter leads a 4- or 5-year-old into a room where there is a marshmallow on a table. The experimenter tells the child he’s going to leave the room for a little while, and that if the child doesn’t eat the marshmallow until he comes back, he’ll be rewarded with two marshmallows. If he eats the marshmallow, he’ll get only that one.

Most kids could only wait about 30 seconds. Only one in three resisted for the full 15 minutes that the experimenter was away. The trick, the researchers found, was that the good delayers were able to distract themselves.

Following up in the mid-1980s, Mr. Mischel and his colleagues found that the good delayers were better at concentrating and reasoning, and didn’t “tend to go to pieces under stress,” as their report said.

Could it be that teaching children how to delay gratification—as middle-class French parents do—actually makes them calmer and more resilient? Might this partly explain why middle-class American kids, who are in general more used to getting what they want right away, so often fall apart under stress?

Mr. Mischel, who is originally from Vienna, hasn’t performed the marshmallow test on French children. But as a longtime observer of France, he said that he was struck by the difference between French and American kids. In the U.S., he said, “certainly the impression one has is that self-control has gotten increasingly difficult for kids.”

American parents want their kids to be patient, of course. We encourage our kids to share, to wait their turn, to set the table and to practice the piano. But patience isn’t a skill that we hone quite as assiduously as French parents do. We tend to view whether kids are good at waiting as a matter of temperament. In our view, parents either luck out and get a child who waits well or they don’t.

French parents and caregivers find it hard to believe that we are so laissez-faire about this crucial ability. When I mentioned the topic at a dinner party in Paris, my French host launched into a story about the year he lived in Southern California.

He and his wife had befriended an American couple and decided to spend a weekend away with them in Santa Barbara. It was the first time they’d met each other’s kids, who ranged in age from about 7 to 15. Years later, they still remember how the American kids frequently interrupted the adults in midsentence. And there were no fixed mealtimes; the American kids just went to the refrigerator and took food whenever they wanted. To the French couple, it seemed like the American kids were in charge.

“What struck us, and bothered us, was that the parents never said ‘no,’ ” the husband said. The children did “n’importe quoi,” his wife added.

After a while, it struck me that most French descriptions of American kids include this phrase “n’importe quoi,” meaning “whatever” or “anything they like.” It suggests that the American kids don’t have firm boundaries, that their parents lack authority, and that anything goes. It’s the antithesis of the French ideal of the cadre, or frame, that French parents often talk about. Cadre means that kids have very firm limits about certain things—that’s the frame—and that the parents strictly enforce these. But inside the cadre, French parents entrust their kids with quite a lot of freedom and autonomy.

Authority is one of the most impressive parts of French parenting—and perhaps the toughest one to master. Many French parents I meet have an easy, calm authority with their children that I can only envy. Their kids actually listen to them. French children aren’t constantly dashing off, talking back, or engaging in prolonged negotiations.

One Sunday morning at the park, my neighbor Frédérique witnessed me trying to cope with my son Leo, who was then 2 years old. Leo did everything quickly, and when I went to the park with him, I was in constant motion, too. He seemed to regard the gates around play areas as merely an invitation to exit.

Frédérique had recently adopted a beautiful redheaded 3-year-old from a Russian orphanage. At the time of our outing, she had been a mother for all of three months. Yet just by virtue of being French, she already had a whole different vision of authority than I did—what was possible and pas possible.

Frédérique and I were sitting at the perimeter of the sandbox, trying to talk. But Leo kept dashing outside the gate surrounding the sandbox. Each time, I got up to chase him, scold him, and drag him back while he screamed. At first, Frédérique watched this little ritual in silence. Then, without any condescension, she said that if I was running after Leo all the time, we wouldn’t be able to indulge in the small pleasure of sitting and chatting for a few minutes.

“That’s true,” I said. “But what can I do?” Frédérique said I should be sterner with Leo. In my mind, spending the afternoon chasing Leo was inevitable. In her mind, it was pas possible.

I pointed out that I’d been scolding Leo for the last 20 minutes. Frédérique smiled. She said that I needed to make my “no” stronger and to really believe in it. The next time Leo tried to run outside the gate, I said “no” more sharply than usual. He left anyway. I followed and dragged him back. “You see?” I said. “It’s not possible.”

Frédérique smiled again and told me not to shout but rather to speak with more conviction. I was scared that I would terrify him. “Don’t worry,” Frederique said, urging me on.

Leo didn’t listen the next time either. But I gradually felt my “nos” coming from a more convincing place. They weren’t louder, but they were more self-assured. By the fourth try, when I was finally brimming with conviction, Leo approached the gate but—miraculously—didn’t open it. He looked back and eyed me warily. I widened my eyes and tried to look disapproving.

After about 10 minutes, Leo stopped trying to leave altogether. He seemed to forget about the gate and just played in the sandbox with the other kids. Soon Frédérique and I were chatting, with our legs stretched out in front of us. I was shocked that Leo suddenly viewed me as an authority figure.

“See that,” Frédérique said, not gloating. “It was your tone of voice.” She pointed out that Leo didn’t appear to be traumatized. For the moment—and possibly for the first time ever—he actually seemed like a French child.