ㄐㄗ对《Sophie's World》的笔记(1)

1

Page 10:
The world itself becomes a habit in no time at all. It seems as if in the process of growing up we lose the ability to wonder about the world. And in doing so, we lose something central—something philosophers try to restore. For somewhere inside ourselves, something tells us that life is a huge mystery. This is something we once experienced, long before we learned to think the thought.
Page 17:
For us, the most interesting part is actually not what solutions these earliest philosophers arrived at, but which questions they asked and what type of answer they were looking for. We are more interested in how they thought than in exactly what they thought.
Page 18:
Heraclitus pointed out that the world is characterized by opposites. If we were never ill, we would not know what it was to be well. If we never knew hunger, we would take no pleasure in being full. If there were never any war, we would not appreciate peace. And if there
Page 19:
Parmenides says: a) that nothing can change, and b) that our sensory perceptions must therefore be unreliable. Heraclitus, on the other hand, says: a) that everything changes (“all things flow”), and b) that our sensory perceptions are reliable.
Page 20:
Empedocles might have watched a piece of wood burning. Something disintegrates. We hear it crackle and splutter. That is “water.” Something goes up in smoke. That is “air.” The “fire” we can see. Something also remains when the fire is extinguished. That is the ashes—or “earth.”
Page 42:
Plato believed that everything tangible in nature “flows.” So there are no “substances” that do not dissolve. Absolutely everything that belongs to the “material world” is made of a material that time can erode, but everything is made after a timeless “mold” or “form” that is eternal and immutable.
Page 43:
, and he concluded that it had to be because there are a limited number of forms “behind” everything we see around us. Plato called these forms ideas. Behind every horse, pig, or human being, there is the “idea horse,” “idea pig,” and “idea human being.”
Page 63:
A common feature of the new religious formations during the Hellenistic period was that they frequently contained teachings about how mankind could attain salvation from death. These teachings were often secret. By accepting the teachings and performing certain rituals,
Page 64:
The Cynics emphasized that true happiness is not found in external advantages such as material luxury, political power, or good health. True happiness lies in not being dependent on such random and fleeting things. And because happiness does not consist in benefits of this kind, it is within everyone’s reach. Moreover, having once been attained, it can never be lost.
Page 65:
The Cynics were instrumental in the development of the Stoic school of philosophy, which grew up in Athens around 300 B.C. Its founder was Zeno, who came originally from Cyprus and joined the Cynics in Athens after being shipwrecked. He used to gather his followers under a portico. The name “Stoic” comes from the Greek word for portico (stoo). Stoicism was later to have great significance for Roman culture.
The Stoics, moreover, emphasized that all natural processes, such as sickness and death, follow the unbreakable laws of nature. Man must therefore learn to accept his destiny. Nothing happens accidentally. Everything happens through necessity, so it is of little use to complain when fate comes knocking at the door. One must also accept the happy events of life unperturbed, they thought. In this we see their kinship with the Cynics, who claimed that all external events were unimportant.
Page 66:
Epicurus emphasized that the pleasurable results of an action must always be weighed against its possible side effects.
“Death does not concern us,” Epicurus said quite simply, “because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.”
Page 67:
Plotinus’s metaphor is rather like Plato’s myth of the cave: the closer we get to the mouth of the cave, the closer we get to that which all existence springs from. But in contrast to Plato’s clear two-fold reality, Plotinus’s doctrine is characterized by an experience of wholeness. Everything is one—for everything is God.
Page 68:
The mystic may have to seek the path of “purification and enlightenment” to his meeting with God. This path consists of the simple life and various meditation techniques. Then all at once the mystic achieves his goal, and can exclaim, “I am God” or “I am You.”
Page 98:
Renaissance brought a new belief in man and his worth, in striking contrast to the biased medieval emphasis on the sinful nature of man.
One of the central figures of the Renaissance was Marsilio Ficino, who exclaimed: ‘Know thyself, O divine lineage in mortal guise!’
“Throughout the whole medieval period, the point of departure had always been God. The humanists of the Renaissance took as their point of departure man himself.”
Page 99:
Many held the view that God was also present in his creation. If he is indeed infinite, he must be present in everything. This idea is called pantheism.
‘Measure what can be measured, and make measurable what cannot be measured,’
Page 111:
“The word ‘baroque’ comes from a word that was first used to describe a pearl of irregular shape. Irregularity was typical of Baroque art, which was much richer in highly contrastive forms than the plainer and more harmonious Renaissance art.
Page 113:
‘And I’ve operated on many clever brains but I’ve never seen a single thought.’ “ “But that doesn’t prove that thoughts don’t exist.”
Page 114:
There is a direct line of descent from Socrates and Plato via St. Augustine to Descartes. They were all typical rationalists, convinced that reason was the only path to knowledge.
Page 116:
“But Descartes tried to work forward from this zero point. He doubted everything, and that was the only thing he was certain of. But now something struck him: one thing had to be true, and that was that he doubted. When he doubted, he had to be thinking, and because he was thinking, it had to be certain that he was a thinking being. Or, as he himself expressed it: Cogito, ergo sum.” “Which means?”
Page 121:
. Spinoza was part of the same rationalistic tradition. He wanted his ethics to show that human life is subject to the universal laws of nature. We must therefore free ourselves from our feelings and our passions. Only then will we find contentment and be happy, he believed.”
Page 122:
. Spinoza maintained that all material things and things that happen around us are an expression of God or nature. So it follows that all thoughts that we think are also God’s or nature’s thoughts. For everything is One. There is only one God, one nature, or one Substance.”
Page 127:
“An empiricist will derive all knowledge of the world from what the senses tell us.
Page 130:
. For as Hume put it: If we take in our hands any volume ... let us ask, ‘Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?’ No. ‘Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?’ No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
“I’m with you.” “Hume begins by establishing that man has two different types of perceptions, namely impressions
Page 133:
“ ‘Decay is inherent in all compound things. Work out your own salvation with diligence.’
Page 134:
“When Hume discusses the force of habit, he concentrates on ‘the law of causation.’ This law establishes that everything that happens must have a cause
Page 135:
“The fact that one thing follows after another thus does not necessarily mean there is a causal link. One of the main concerns of philosophy is to warn people against jumping to conclusions. It can in fact lead to many different forms of superstition.
It is neither reasonable nor unreasonable not to help someone in need, but it could be unkind.
Page 136:
’ Hume said you can never draw conclusions from is sentences to ought sentences
“So we have established that we cannot use reason as a yardstick for how we ought to act. Acting responsibly is not a matter of strengthening our reason but of deepening our feelings for the welfare of others. “Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger,’ said Hume.”
Page 137:
He believed we cannot know any more of the world than we can perceive through the senses?”
Page 138:
“Berkeley believed in a ‘spirit.’ He thought all our ideas have a cause beyond our consciousness, but that this cause is not of a material nature. It is spiritual.”
Page 142:
Democritus agreed with his predecessors that transformations in nature could not be due to the fact that anything actually “changed.” He therefore assumed that everything was built up of tiny invisible blocks, each of which was eternal and immutable. Democritus called these smallest units atoms.
Page 153:
t Locke was not consistent in his empiricism. He believed, for example, that faith in God and certain moral norms were inherent in human reason. This idea is also the core of the French Enlightenment.”
Page 154:
“By Deism we mean a belief that God created the world ages and ages ago, but has not revealed himself to the world since. Thus God is reduced to the ‘Supreme Being’ who only reveals himself to mankind through nature and natural laws, never in any ‘supernatural’ way. We find a similar ‘philosophical God’ in the writings of Aristotle. For him, God was the ‘formal cause’ or ‘first mover.’ “
Page 156:
. Two hundred years ago, the slogan “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” helped unite the people of France.
Page 158:
“Remember that the rationalists believed that the basis for all human knowledge lay in the mind. And that the empiricists believed all knowledge of the world proceeded from the senses. Moreover, Hume had pointed out that there are clear limits regarding which conclusions we could reach through our sense perceptions.”
“Whatever we see will first and foremost be perceived as phenomena in time and space. Kant called ‘time’ and ‘space’ our two ‘forms of intuition.’ And he emphasized that these two ‘forms’ in our own mind precede every experience. In other words, we can know before we experience things that we will perceive them as phenomena in time and space. For we are not able to take off the ‘glasses’ of reason.”
Page 161:
“But it will always be an attribute of human reason to ask where the ball comes from. That’s why we ask and ask, we exert ourselves to the fullest to find answers to all the deepest questions. But we never get anything firm to bite on; we never get a satisfactory answer because reason is not locked on.”
Page 162:
“To ‘postulate’ something is to assume something that cannot be proved. By a ‘practical postulate,’ Kant meant something that had to be assumed for the sake of ‘praxis,’ or practice; that is to say, for man’s morality. ‘It is a moral necessity to assume the existence of God,’
Page 163:
“For Hume it was neither our reason nor our experience that determined the difference between right and wrong. It was simply our sentiments. This was too tenuous a basis for Kant.”
“Kant formulates the moral law as a categorical imperative. By this he means that the moral law is ‘categorical,’ or that it applies to all situations. It is, moreover, ‘imperative,’ which means it is commanding and therefore absolutely authoritative.”
Page 164:
Kant calls das Ding an sich—that is, the world as it exists in itself, independent of our sensory impressions. Only when we follow our ‘practical reason’— which enables us to make moral choices—do we exercise our free will, because when we conform to moral law, it is we who make the law we are conforming to.”
Page 169:
“The new catchwords were ‘feeling,”imagination,”experience,’ and ‘yearning.’ Some of the Enlightenment thinkers had drawn attention to the importance of feeling—not least Rousseau—but at that time it was a criticism of the bias toward reason
“Beethoven was one. His music expresses his own feelings and yearnings. Beethoven was in a sense a ‘free’ artist—unlike the Baroque masters such as Bach and Handel, who composed their works to the glory of God, mostly in strict musical forms.”
There were many similarities between the Renaissance and Romanticism. A typical one was the importance of art to human cognition. Kant made a considerable contribution here as well. In his aesthetics he investigated what happens when we are overwhelmed by beauty—in a work of art, for instance. When we abandon ourselves to a work of art with no other intention than the aesthetic experience itself, we are brought closer to an experience of ‘das Ding an sich.’
Page 170:
. He wrote that the activity of the artist is like playing, and man is only free when he plays, because then he makes up his own rules. The Romantics believed that only art could bring us closer to ‘the inexpressible.’ Some went as far as to compare the artist to God.
“Novalis, one of the young geniuses, said that ‘the world becomes a dream, and the dream becomes reality.
Page 171:
one of the features of Romanticism was this yearning for nature and nature’s mysteries.
Page 177:
“Schelling as well as other Romantics had said that the deepest meaning of life lay in what they called the ‘world spirit.’ Hegel also uses the term ‘world spirit,’ but in a new sense. When Hegel talks of ‘world spirit’ or ‘world reason,’ he means the sum of human utterances, because only man has a ‘spirit.’
Page 178:
Hegel said that ‘truth is subjective/ thus rejecting the existence of any ‘truth’ above or beyond human reason. All knowledge is human knowledge
He believed that the basis of human cognition changed from one generation to the next. There were therefore no ‘eternal truths/ no timeless reason. The only fixed point philosophy can hold on to is history itself
Page 180:
“The Eleatics were right in that nothing actually changes, but they were not right in holding that we cannot rely on our senses. Heraclitus had been right in that we can rely on our senses, but not right in holding that everything flows.” “Because there was more than one substance. It was the combination that flowed, not the substance itself.”
Page 181:
“From the point of view of pure logic or philosophy, there will often be a dialectical tension between two concepts.”
“Hegel’s ‘reason’ is thus dynamic logic. Since reality is characterized by opposites, a description of reality must therefore also be full of opposites.
: There are two kinds of truths. There are the superficial truths, the opposite of which are obviously wrong. But there are also the profound truths, whose op-posites are equally right.
Page 182:
He who does not find his place within the state is therefore an unhistorical person. This idea, you may recall, was also central for the great Athenian philosophers. Just as the state is unthinkable without citizens, citizens are unthinkable without the state.”
Page 183:
“The world spirit reaches the highest form of self-realization in absolute spirit. And this absolute spirit is art, religion, and philosophy. And of these, philosophy is the highest form of knowledge because in philosophy, the world spirit reflects on its own impact on history. So the world spirit first meets itself in philosophy. You could say, perhaps, that philosophy is the mirror of the world spirit.”
Page 185:
“It is Pantheism or Idealism,” he said. “It is the Romantics’ world spirit. They experienced everything as one big ‘ego.’ It is also Hegel—who was critical of the individual, and who saw everything as the expression of the one and only world reason.”
Page 187:
“According to Kierkegaard, rather than searching for the Truth with a capital T, it is more important to find the kind of truths that are meaningful to the individual’s life. It is important to find ‘the truth for me.’ He thus sets the individual, or each and every man, up against the ‘sys- tem.’
. A broad description of human nature or human beings was totally without interest to Kierkegaard. The only important thing was each man’s ‘own existence.’ And you don’t experience your own existence behind a desk. It’s only when we act—and especially when we make significant choices—that we relate to our own existence.
Page 188:
“Kierkegaard also said that truth is ‘subjective.’ By this he did not mean that it doesn’t matter what we think or believe. He meant that the really important truths are personal. Only these truths are ‘true for me.’ “
Page 189:
According to Kierkegaard, angst is almost positive. It is an expression of the fact that the individual is in an ‘existential situation,’ and can now elect to make the great leap to a higher stage. But it either happens or it doesn’t. It doesn’t help to be on the verge of making the leap if you don’t do it completely. It is a matter of ‘either/or.’ But nobody can do it for you. It is your own choice.”
Page 195:
“Marx called these material, economic, and social relations the basis of society. The way a society thinks, what kind of political institutions there are, which laws it has and, not least, what there is of religion, morals, art, philosophy, and science, Marx called society’s superstruc- ture.”
Page 196:
t it is the mode of production in a society which determines which political and ideological conditions are to be found there. It is not by chance that today we think somewhat differently—and have a somewhat different moral codex—from the old feu- dal society.”
’ In other words, history is prin- cipally a matter of who is to own the means of production
“Marx believed that in all phases of history there has been a conflict between two dominant classes of society. In antiquity’s slave society, the conflict was between free citizen and slave. In the feudal society of the Middle Ages, it was between feudal lord and serf; later on, between aristocrat and citizen. But in Marx’s own time, in what he called a bourgeois or capitalist society, the conflict was first and foremost between the capitalists and the workers, or the proletariat. So the conflict stood between those who own the means of production and those who do not. And since the ‘upper classes’ do not voluntarily relinquish their power, change can only come about through revolution.”
Hegel believed there was an interactive, or dialectic, relationship between man and nature. When man alters nature, he himself is altered.
Page 197:
“Under the capitalist system, the worker labors for someone else. His labor is thus something external to him—or something that does not belong to him. The worker becomes alien to his work—but at the same time also alien to himself. He loses touch with his own reality. Marx says, with a Hegelian expression, that the worker becomes alienated.”
“In a capitalist society, labor is organized in such a way that the worker in fact slaves for another social class. Thus the worker transfers his own labor—and with it, the whole of his life—to the bourgeoisie.”
Page 199:
“After Marx, the socialist movement split into two main streams, Social Democracy and Leninism. Social Democracy, which has stood for a gradual and peaceful path in the direction of socialism, was Western Europe’s way. We might call this the slow revolution. Leninism, which retained Marx’s belief that revolution was the only way to combat the old class society, had great influence in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. Each in their own way, both movements have fought against hardship and oppression.”
Page 201:
. By ‘naturalistic’ we mean a sense of reality that accepts no other reality than nature and the sensory world. A naturalist therefore also considers mankind to be part of nature. A naturalistic scientist will exclusively rely on natural phenomena—not on either rationalistic suppositions or any form of divine revelation.”
Marx had pointed out that human ideologies were a product of the basis of society. Darwin showed that mankind was the result of a slow biological evolution, and Freud’s studies of the unconscious revealed that people’s actions were often the result of ‘animal’ urges or instincts.”
Page 205:
. Lamarck believed that the characteristics each individual acquires through his own efforts are passed on to the next generation
. Darwin pointed out that no cows, no stalks of wheat, no dogs, and no finches are completely alike. Nature produces an enormous breadth of variation. Even within the same species, no two individuals are exactly alike.
Page 208:
“Lamarck’s explanation of why the giraffe has such a long neck was that giraffes have always had to reach upwards. But according to Darwinism, no such inherited characteristic would be passed on. Darwin believed that the giraffe’s long neck was the result of a variation. Neo-Darwinism supplemented this by showing a clear cause of just that particular variation.” “Mutations?”
Page 210:
“What Darwin was philosophizing on here was how the first living cell might have been formed out of inorganic matter. And again, he hit the nail right on the head. Scientists of today think the first primitive form of life arose in precisely the kind of ‘hot little pool’ that Darwin pic- tured.”
Page 215:
“We call it Victorianism, when everything to do with sexuality is taboo. Freud first became aware of children’s sexuality during his practice of psychotherapy. So he had an empirical basis for his claims. He had also seen how numerous forms of neurosis or psychological disorders could be traced back to conflicts during childhood.
Page 216:
“We carry the id, or pleasure principle, with us into adulthood and throughout life. But gradually we learn to regulate our desires and adjust to our surroundings. We learn to regulate the pleasure principle in relation to the ‘reality principle.’ In Freud’s terms, we develop an ego which has this regulative function. Even though we want or need something, we cannot just lie down and scream until we get what we want or need.”
Freud proposed, and worked with, a third element in the human mind. From infancy we are constantly faced with the moral demands of our parents and of society. When we do anything wrong, our parents say ‘Don’t do that!’ or ‘Naughty naughty, that’s bad!’ Even when we are grown up, we retain the echo of such moral demands and judgments. It seems as though the world’s moral expectations have become part of us. Freud called this the superego.”
Page 218:
“When we project, we transfer the characteristics we are trying to repress in ourselves onto other people.
. Freud’s point was that these slips are neither as accidental nor as innocent as we think. These bungled actions can in fact reveal the most intimate secrets.”
Page 220:
Freud believed that the dream was a ‘disguised fulfillment of a repressed wish.
Page 222:
? Maybe the imagination creates what is new, but the imagination does not make the actual selection. The imagination does not ‘compose.’ A composition—and every work of art is one—is created in a wondrous interplay between imagination and reason, or between mind and reflection. For there will always be an element of chance in the creative process. You have to turn the sheep loose before you can start to herd them.”
Page 228:
. ‘Be true to the world,’ he said. ‘Do not listen to those who offer you supernatural expectations.’ “
But according to Sartre, man has no such innate ‘nature.’ Man must therefore create himself. He must create his own nature or ‘essence,’ because it is not fixed in advance.
Page 229:
“Sartre tried to prove that consciousness in itself is nothing until it has perceived something. Because consciousness is always conscious of something. And this ‘something’ is provided just as much by ourselves as by our surroundings. We are partly instrumental in deciding what we perceive by selecting what is significant for us.”
Page 230:
. Simone de Beauvoir in fact did not believe in the existence of any such ‘female nature’ or ‘male nature.’ On the contrary, she believed that women and men must liberate themselves from such ingrown prejudices or ideals.”
The theater of the absurd represented a contrast to realistic theater. Its aim was to show the lack of meaning in life in order to get the audience to disagree. The idea was not to cultivate the meaningless.
Page 258:
哲学的源头：我是谁？世界从何而来？某个时刻事物必然从无到有，而不是一直存在的，包括上帝
哲学的必要条件：好奇心。不对世界的一切视为理所当然。哲学家努力掌握永恒不变的事物
神话世界观：哲学诞生之前，用神话来解释世界和自然现象
希腊自然派哲学家-世界由基本物质构成：
由一种元素构成（泰利斯-水、阿那克西曼德-难以名状、安纳西美尼斯-空气）-> 
理性主义-自然由普遍理性指导（巴门尼德-万物静止，眼见不为实；赫拉克利特-万物流动，眼见为实）->
恩培多克勒-四种元素、物质和力量概念分开 -> 阿那克萨戈拉-自然由微小粒子构成，每个粒子都包含整体特征 ->
德谟克利特 - 原子论（原子形状各异、不可分割）、唯物论者（万物机械变化，但原子不变，不存在精神力量和不朽灵魂）
命运：宿命论（Delphi神谕）-> 历史（希罗多德和修昔底德）与医学（希波克拉底-平衡节制健康生活）为历史和疾病寻找自然解释
雅典的古典派：关心个人与个人在社会的地位
诡辩学派：世间没有绝对的是非标准，每个社会都不同。怀疑论：人类永远不可能揭开宇宙之谜；不可知论：无法确定是否有神
苏格拉底：喜欢讨论而非讲课，假装无知来讨教，最后指出对方的错误-苏格拉底式反讽。始终认为自己知识贫乏。
知善者必能行善：明辨是非的能力存在于人的理性而非社会中，人如果违反自己的理性就不会快乐，所以明白是非者就不会为恶，世间也存在永恒绝对的是非观念
柏拉图理型论：物质世界的背后必有一个实在存在，称为“理型的世界”，其中包含存在于自然界各种现象背后永恒不变的模式（各类事物的标准模型）。感观世界的事物都是理型的不完美投影，都会变化，而理性能理解理型世界里永恒不变宇宙共通的事物。理性源于生前来自理型世界的不朽灵魂，追寻理型世界是灵魂回归本源、从肉体的枷锁中挣脱的渴望（二元论）
柏拉图理想国：类似于印度阶级世袭制度，现代看来属于极权社会。但女人应有同等能力和地位，统治者和战士责任重大不能有家庭，养育孩童由政府负责
身体象征 灵魂 美德 身份
头部 理性 智慧 统治者
胸部 意志 勇气 战士
腹部 欲望 自制 工匠
亚里士多德：柏拉图只追寻理型世界，认为理型与灵魂先于个体和个人存在；亚里士多德注重研究感官世界，认为理型是人类看到许多同类事物后形成的概念，理型作为特征存在于事物之中（事物的潜能与极限），其本身是不存在的。人的一切认知通过感官才进入意识，但纯粹的理性是与生俱来的
目的因：除了质料、行为、性质之外，目的也是所有事物的原因的要素。
逻辑：亚里士多德创立了逻辑学-得出结论或证明必须遵循的法则，比如三段论。
亚里士多德把万物分类，非生物/生物（有能力吸收养分来生长繁殖）-> 植物/动物（感知周遭环境并移动的能力） -> 禽兽/人类（思考能力），思考所依据的理性就是上帝
在伦理和政治上，亚里士多德持“黄金中庸”观点，对女性则认为女性并不完整，母亲只是土壤质料，父亲贡献了所有遗传特质，直接影响了中世纪对女性的观念（而非源自圣经）
犬儒学派：幸福不来源于外在环境的优势，因而每个人都可以获得并不再失去。也无需担心自己和他人的生老病死与痛苦来白受罪（第欧根尼：住在木桶里让亚历山大闪开）
斯多葛学派：存在永恒的宇宙公理，每个人都是大宇宙的缩影，精神与物质并无冲突，宇宙间只有一个大自然（一元论），热衷政治和团体活动。自然现象都是遵循法则，快乐不来自外在，也无需为命运担忧（同犬儒主义）（马可奥勒留、西塞罗-人本主义）
伊壁鸠鲁学派：由享乐主义（阿瑞斯提普斯）发展而来，考量一个行动的乐趣时，必须斟酌其副作用，同时考虑是否有其他方式获得更大快乐。快乐不仅是物质享受，也包括艺术欣赏和恬静自制的心态等。灵魂原子-死亡是存在的终结，与自己没有关系。神不足惧，死不足忧，祸苦易忍，福乐易求。主张离群索居。（花园哲学家伊壁鸠鲁）
以上三者源自苏格拉底哲学
新柏拉图派：宇宙万物一体，上帝之光存在于万物之中，灵魂离上帝最近，冰冷的物质最远。黑暗本不存在，只是缺乏上帝之光的照耀（普罗提诺）
神秘主义：失去自我，与上帝（天地、宇宙）合一的体验，我就是上帝，人人都可以是上帝，东西方都有，印度教尤其盛行
印欧文化（印度、希腊罗马、古代北欧）：多神论，最重视觉（神像），历史是循环轮回的，通过哲学思索洞察预测历史，因此重视自省冥想以脱离轮回
闪族文化（犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教）：一神论，最重听觉（念经），历史是直线（从神创世到审判日），认为上帝决定历史，因此重视祈祷布道研究历史以期望被救
保罗把基督教传到希腊，把信徒从犹太人扩大到外邦人，基督教受希腊罗马文化影响有交叉，因而有神像
中世纪
圣奥古斯丁：把新柏拉图学派带入基督教，理型世界存在于上帝心中，上帝依此创造世界。哲学能做的有限，信仰才能使灵魂平静
圣多玛斯·阿奎那：把亚里士多德学说带入基督教，包括对女性的看法。真理（如上帝存在）可以通过两条途径得知，一是信仰和基督启示，二是理性和感官。创世纪等“信仰的事实”只能通过信仰。Sophie来自希腊语，意为上帝女性化的一面与智慧
文艺复兴
人文主义：人是独一无二的尊贵个体，神存在于万物之中（泛神论，布鲁诺），崇拜天才（达芬奇）
实证法：以实验和数学测量，而不是古人著作或纯理性思考，来作为知识的基础（伽利略、开普勒）
牛顿：万有引力定律和惯性统一了天上人间的规律，证实了宇宙世界观，宇宙没有绝对的中心，因此每个人都是中心（人文主义）
马丁路德：人与上帝沟通不需要通过教会，人只能通过信仰而非教会仪式得救，溯源新约，只信经文
巴洛克时期：在相互矛盾的对比中呈现张力；人生如戏如梦；理想主义（生命具有崇高特质）与机械论唯物主义（万物皆机器）并存
理性主义（欧陆）：
笛卡尔：用理性来解决哲学问题；原则上应怀疑每一件事（包括前人理论和感官），只有怀疑本身是可以确定的->怀疑必然是在思考->自己是个会思考的存在者->我思故我在
我们拥有完美实体的概念->如果完美实体不存在就不完美了+此概念不可能来自不完美的我们但却与生俱来->完美实体（上帝）必然存在 
依理性看来越是明显的事情，它的存在也越加肯定
外在世界可能是幻象->但也有可用理性查知的特点（数学特质）->宇宙有一个外在的真实世界
二元论：宇宙有两种不同形式的实体，思想（灵魂）和扩延（物质）。灵魂纯属意识不可分割，物质可以一再分解。二者会相互影响，但灵魂（理性）可以超脱物质（肚子疼，2+2=4不会受影响）
斯宾诺莎：第一个对圣经进行历史性批判，认为犹太教和基督教完全是透过严格教条和外在仪式才得以流传。《几何伦理学》：理性逻辑来思考伦理，显示生命是遵守大自然的法则，必须挣脱自我感觉与冲动才能快乐。是泛神论、一元论、理性主义者。
斯宾诺莎自然法则：所有事物都可被分解简化为一种实体（可称为上帝或大自然）。上帝具有包括思想和扩延以及可能未知的多种属性，透过自然法则（内因）来主宰世界。自然界每件事物都是实体（上帝、自然）的思想或扩延两种表现形式之一。万物一体，人也是广大无边的存在的表现，没有本质上的自由意志，被上帝自然法则（内因）和外界条件（外因）主宰。从永恒的观点来看，每件事情都有必然性，人要克制内心的冲动（野心欲望），凭直觉理解大自然。
经验主义（英国）：从感官获取一切关于世界的知识，先天一片空白。
洛克：代表作《论人之理解力》。所有思想和观念都反映“单一感官”察知的事物，在此之前心灵一片空白。在感官同时，心灵通过处理收到的信息产生了“思维”，得以让“单一感觉”形成复合概念。所有不能回溯成单一感觉的知识都是虚假的。感官分主要（扩延世界特质如重量运动数量-所有人有一致看法）和次要（反映在感官上作用的如颜色气息味道声音-因人而异）性质，主要性质可以通过理智来了解（洛克的理性主义特征）
休谟：经验主义、不可知论者。代表作《人性论》。人应回到对世界由自发性感觉的状态，也就是孩提时代对世界更敏锐的印象。人有两种知觉，“印象”-对外界实在的直接感受，“观念”-对印象的回忆。印象和观念可以复合，因而观念会包含现实不共存的概念，比如天使、飞马、天堂。“上帝”则是无限智慧、善良等等组成的复合观念。人应审查每一个观念，回溯到特定感官认知的单一观念，看看它们是否以不符合现实的方式复合而成。而自我认知是一长串自己同时体验过的单一印象造成的结果，并没有“不变的自我”（佛有类似理论）。伦理学上休谟也反对理性主义关于人的理性天生能辨是非的观点，人的言行应由感情而非理性决定的（理性上杀掉几百万人对地球更好）。
不可知论：接受感官认知的事物，除此之外一切有待证实。从未体验过奇迹，但也从未体验过“奇迹一定不会发生”这一自然法则。我们只能体验习惯性期待（石头无数次掉下），而非自然法则（重力原理本身）。习惯性期待还包括对因果的强调，可以体验时间先后的两件事，但不能体验两件事的因果关系，因而不能妄下定论，永远不能证明什么是对的，什么是错的（不能从“是不是”的语句得出“该不该”的结论）。小孩没有任何先入为主的观念，没有习惯性期待，见到的是世界的原貌。
柏克莱：最彻底的经验主义，我们无法察知我们所感受到的事物是否存在（例如在梦里也能有各种感受但不存在对应事物）。观念的成因不是物质性的，而是精神性的，称为“灵”。自身的各种观念可能源于自己的灵魂，世间万物的概念则源于另一个灵（天主）。我们感官到的一切（包括时间空间）都是天主力量的作用，天主的存在比人的存在更容易清楚地感知。
启蒙时代（法国）（孟德斯鸠、卢梭、伏尔泰）：反抗权威、理性主义、启蒙运动（教育学、百科全书）、文化上的乐观态度（非理性和无知迟早会被文明的人性取代）、回归自然（过度文明不好）、自然宗教（上帝是目的因和最初推动者，只以自然法则不以超自然形式现身）、人权
康德：人的观念兼来自理性和感官，心灵和事物会相互顺应。时间和空间是人的两种先于一切经验的“直观形式”，属于人类天生的条件，时空是人类感知的方式，而非物质世界的属性，人所感官的所有事物都被看做时间与空间里的现象。
因果律：与休谟相反，康德认为因为人类理性决定了感知事物因果的能力和特性（人喜欢追究原因，婴儿理性还未充分发展不算），因此因果律是绝对的、永恒的。所谓自然法则其实是人类认知的法则（基于人对事物的认知，人永远不可知事物本身），而理性能运作的范围超过的人类认知理解的程度，所以缺乏透过感官而来的知识材料的问题（我们是什么、是否有不朽灵魂、上帝是否存等），理性无从运作，是无法得到确切答案的，因此总有不同看法，应该交给信仰。而为了道德，必须假定上帝存在。
康德的伦理学：辨别是非的能力和因果律一样是人的理性与生俱来的，本质意义是尊重一个人本身，而不将其当做实现某种目的的手段，可以理解为良心。作为物质形成的生物，我们受因果律支配；同时作为一个理性的存在，我们只有追随实践理性并因此得以做道德上的抉择时，我们才有自由意志可言。康德终结了理性主义和经验主义的僵局。
浪漫主义：体验生活，用自己的方式（自由艺术）诠释生命，受到美的感动而忘记一切时，比较容易感受到自我，如上帝创造世界一般创造自己的世界。作者打破幻想提醒读者操纵者是他的做法叫“浪漫主义的反讽”。可能存在多重世界（matrix里的matrix）
谢林：大自然的全部，包括灵魂与物质世界，都是一个“绝对存在”（或世界精神）的表现，自然是可见的精神，精神是看不见的自然。研究自然科学和进入内心作诗是一体两面。世界在“上帝之内”，上帝意识到世界的一部分，大自然也有一部分代表上帝不为人知的部分。（就像作者与作品以及作品里人物的关系）
赫德：世间不止一种普遍理性，各个时期和各个民族都有其个性和灵魂，要认同其他文化。->民族浪漫主义
费希特：和艺术作品源自艺术家一样，大自然源自更高、无意识的想象力（可称作上帝）。
黑格尔：“世界精神”实为人类理性的综合，人类理性之外没有任何真理或知识。人类理性随历史发展而变化，不存在永恒的哲学标准，必须参照其历史背景。哲学的发展过程是辩证模式的。个人与社会的关系也是辩证的，浪漫主义追求个人主义，但理性必须通过人际互动才能彰显，人不能舍弃社会。只有世界精神而非个人可以发现自我，三个阶段：意识到自我在个人中的存在（主观精神）->自我在家庭、社会、国家的人际互动中达到更高的意识（客观精神）->在艺术、宗教、哲学中达到最高形式的自我实现（绝对精神）。世界精神最先在哲学中发现它的自我。黑格尔是庞大哲学体系的最后一个大家，之后走上存在哲学和行动哲学道路。
辩证法：正-反-合（例：笛卡尔-休谟-康德）。对一个道理寻找缺失，称为“否定的思考”，找到了缺点，同时也会保存优点，历史决定是非（合）（对的观点会流传下来）。两个观念总是存在辩证式的紧张关系，事实总会有相反的事物，因此描述事实就必须同时描述相反的事物。辩证的紧张关系能导致自发性的行动，并因此造成突然的改变。
祁克果：存在主义者。每个人都是独一无二的重要个体，世间唯一重要的事是每个人“自己的存在”，唯有通过重要的选择才能和自我存在关联。真正重要的真理是属于个人的，即每个人都必须独自回答的（上帝是否存在，他是否爱我），而由理性可知的事情是不重要的（1+1=2）。所以宗教信仰重要，但又无法用理性去解释。
祁克果人生三阶段：美感阶段（从美感角度看待现实，完全活在感官的世界中，只重视是否有趣，如典型浪漫主义者）&焦虑空虚;道德阶段（对生命抱认真态度，始终一贯做符合道德的抉择，重视是非对错）厌倦;宗教阶段（选择信仰，不选择美感的愉悦和理性要求的责任）
自然主义：除了大自然和感官世界，别无他物。只相信自然现象，而不信任何理性假设或圣灵启示。（马克思、达尔文、弗洛伊德）
马克思：哲学不仅诠释世界，也应用来改变世界。历史唯物主义，物质变化是推进历史的力量，物质决定精神关系。社会基础决定上层结构，同时二者有辩证的互动。社会基础的三个阶层：生产条件（自然条件）、生产工具（技术设备）、生产关系（分工和财产分配）。是非观念是社会基础的产物，尤其是那个社会的统治阶级决定的，因为人类历史就是阶级斗争史。人在劳动时与自然有互动的辩证关系（互相改造），而资本主义社会让劳动变成为他人工作，并被剥削剩余价值。资本主义的矛盾（生产力越来越强，劳动者购买力越来越弱）将使其灭亡，无产阶级革命专政。马克思有经济学错误，同时没有重视人对大自然的掠夺。他之后分流为社会民主主义（西欧渐进和平式）和列宁主义（暴力）。
达尔文：青年时期的环球探险，安第斯山内陆的海洋古生物化石，加拉帕戈斯群岛的物种隔离。《物种起源》。进化论：动植物都是从原始生物进化而来，进化是自然淘汰差异个体的结果。个体差异的原因是遗传与突变。远古无氧环境和无臭氧遮挡宇宙射线才能让第一个DNA细胞形成（氧气氧化性太强），因此现今世上所有生命都是同源的，也不会有新的生命形成。但进化似乎并非完全偶然，而是朝着复杂神经、大脑的方向，眼睛这样的精密是仅仅物竞天择也难以解释。
弗洛伊德：人与环境有不断的紧张关系，这种冲突存在于人的驱策力、需要和社会要求之间。驱策力是指人的非理性冲动（例如从婴儿开始就有的性冲动），在无从查觉得情况下主宰人的行动，而非由理性。人刚出生时，会用直接无羞耻的方式满足身心需求，这种快乐原则称为“本我”。长大过程中学会调整快乐原则来迁就现实环境原则，发展出了具有调节功能的“自我”。从小到大接受的道德要求（例如良心、对性的罪恶感）也成为内心一部分，称为“超我”。三个“我”之间的冲突经验是精神官能症之源，弗洛伊德通过溯源冲突来治愈。
潜意识：人类的意识只占心灵很小一部分，大部分是因为与意识或超我冲突而被压抑的经验想法，即潜意识。被压抑的想法经验总试图重新进入意识，因此会有口误、谎称动机把事情“合理化”（不愿承认真正动机）、投射（把内心试图压抑的特点转移到别人身上）的现象。压抑过强易患精神疾病，排除压抑管制的潜意识自由联想是治疗之道。
解梦：《梦的解析》。了解自己潜意识的最佳途径是梦境。梦反映愿望，孩童的梦直接，成人的梦经过压抑伪装（但比平日弱）。梦境（显梦）和最近的事有关，但有一个更深层的意识无法察觉的意义（潜梦意念），最后梦境以伪装的方式满足人被压抑的愿望。
灵感：潜意识进入了意识。20世纪的超现实主义艺术来自于向潜意识寻求灵感，力图排除理性的阻塞。但之后也要有理智来加以筛选，否则世界会因偶然冲动而毁灭。
尼采：“上帝已死”。重视生命和这个世界本身，不必对历史和宗教“奴隶式道德”以观念世界过于注意。希望对所有价值重新评价，使强者的生命力不受弱者拖累。
萨特：无神论的存在主义，以人类为出发点。人是唯一意识到自己存在的生物，人的存在比其他事物的存在更重要。“存在先于本质”，人没有天生的本性，也没有不变的本性，追求广泛的生命的“意识”是没用的。这不同于虚无主义（没有一件事情有意义，怎样都可以），人必须创造自我的意义，寻求每个问题自己的答案。人在一个没有意义的世界里会感到疏离（同黑格尔），人没有选择是否来到这个世界的自由，但是自由的个体，要不断地选择，并为做的每件事负责。不存在永恒价值和规范，使得我们的选择更有意义。逃避选择是自我欺骗。意识本身在感知某件事物前是不存在的，因为意识总会意识到某件事物，这个事物固然由环境提供，但也由我们自己选择决定我们要感知什么，并虚无化与我们无关的事物，例如病人只关注救护车，等人时候只关注人没来。
波伏娃：《第二性》。对两性的看法也应用存在主义。男女不存在天性和价值之别，男女都要冲破内在偏见或理想的束缚。
荒诞剧：受存在主义影响，描绘和观众每日一样的琐碎真实环境中，角色默默接受荒谬的超现实情境却不惊讶，来使观众检讨并追求较为真实而有意义的生命。
生态哲学：西方文明以人类为万物主宰的思想形态是错的，会对地球造成致命伤害。注意研究印度、北美原住民等文化的观念思想。
地理大发现时代让世界扩大，20世纪的科技和通讯进步让世界缩小。在变革的时代许多毫无真实经验依据的学说（如占星学）大行其道，以满足解闷的需求。所谓灵媒，除了骗子外，都是自己潜意识的“灵媒”。也有许多现象是现在无法理解的，应开放探索而非武断否定，始终抱有批判性的思考态度。
宇宙大爆炸，人生如星尘。我们每个人都来自宇宙大爆炸伊始的物质，是一百多亿年前熊熊燃烧的大火所爆出来的一点火花。