丹尼特自由观探析

发布时间：2018-08-07 13:17

【摘要】： 本文分为引言,一、二、三章和结束语。在引言部分,本文阐明了选题的目的和意义,以及现阶段国内外对自由理论的研究动态和本文的创新之处。在第一部分,阐述了自由的基本概念；丹尼特自由理论产生的理论背景,即以人类社会发展的历史顺序为主线,列举了从古到今出现的几种具有代表性的自由理论；丹尼特关于自由意志存在的证明,从而给丹尼特论述其自由观及其实践意义——道德责任,做铺垫。在第二部分,本文在第一部分论证自由存在的基础上介绍了四种自由存在方式,而后表明了自己的立场即：温和决定论的自由观。继而通过两个模拟实验,即“生命游戏”,“通用图灵机”实验来模拟现实世界,来说明即使在被视为强硬决定论的这两个模拟实验也存在着人类自由成长的可能性。在自由的实践领域内探讨了决定论与非决定论自由观所涉及到的不同道德责任。在第三部分,本文着力于从人的生物属性和社会属性来论证自由的演化。人的生物属性上,他着重从人类的一些生理构造和心理活动对人类活动的影响来解释我们现有的感官和概念的形成。生理构造方面他列举了人类视觉与其他动物的不同,证明了我们现有的感官手段对我们人类具有某些限制。人的社会属性上,丹尼特援引理查德·道金斯的“谜米”进化的理论和以社会生物学家苏珊·布莱克摩尔为代表的“基因——文化协同进化”理论来说明人类文化观念在进化,但越来越趋同,而谜米的自私性和现代信息的高速传播使人类的自由愈发脆弱,这正是丹尼特所担心的。本文认为,丹尼特的担忧是相当有远见的,但自由也并非没有出路,人类自由的未来在于谜米的载体—人类本身具有历史局限性,以及人类不断解放的生产力。结束语部分对丹尼特的自由观,及其演化进行评述。丹尼特在论证自由时指出了若想拥有自由,首先必须具有对自由意志的信仰。我认为丹尼特在逻辑上颠倒了理想与现实的关系,如果一件事物是不存在的,我们无法需要它；而这个事物是存在的,那么我们对它的证明必将从逻辑上来证明和推论,即使属于意识形态范围内的主观思维,我们也可以通过追踪人类思维轨迹来证明其存在和影响。而丹尼特仅仅因为我们的需要就主观地认为我们具有,这样很容易使我们想起“信仰即可得救”的路德新教。这种证明是盲目的,在逻辑上缺乏严密性,仅仅是种主观意义上的认识革命和自我解放。但是丹尼特关于全球化进程中文化单一化的担心是相当有远见的,人类文明的进步要求人类文化具有多样性,和而不同而非千人一面,这才使我们人类文明有了进步的可能。
[Abstract]:This article is divided into preface, one, two, three chapters and concluding remarks. In the preface, the purpose and significance of the topic, the research trends of freedom theory at home and abroad and the innovation of this paper are expounded. In the first part, the author expounds the basic concept of freedom, the theoretical background of Dennett's freedom theory, that is, taking the historical sequence of human social development as the main line, enumerates several representative freedom theories from ancient to present. Dennett's proof of the existence of free will paves the way for Dennett to discuss his view of liberty and its practical significance-moral responsibility. In the second part, on the basis of the argument of the existence of freedom in the first part, this paper introduces four ways of existence of freedom, and then states its own position, that is, the view of freedom of moderate determinism. Then, the real world is simulated by two simulation experiments, namely "life game" and "general Turing machine", to show that even in the two simulation experiments, which are regarded as tough determinism, there is the possibility that human beings can grow up freely. The different moral responsibilities involved in determinism and non-determinism are discussed in the field of freedom practice. In the third part, this paper tries to demonstrate the evolution of freedom from the biological and social attributes of human beings. In terms of the biological properties of human beings, he focuses on explaining the formation of our existing senses and concepts from the effects of some physiological structures and psychological activities on human activities. Physiologically, he lists the differences between human vision and other animals, proving that our existing sensory devices have some limitations on us. In terms of human social attributes, Danit cites Richard Dawkins's theory of "Mystery" evolution and the theory of "gene-cultural co-evolution", represented by social biologist Susan Blackmore, to illustrate the evolution of human cultural ideas. But more and more convergence, and the selfishness of Mystery and the rapid spread of modern information make human freedom more fragile, which is what Dennett is worried about. This paper holds that Dennett's worries are far-sighted, but freedom is not without a way out. The future of human freedom lies in the carrier of mystery rice-human beings have their own historical limitations, and the constantly liberated productive forces of human beings. The conclusion part reviews Dennett's view of freedom and its evolution. In demonstrating freedom, Dennett pointed out that to be free, one must first have faith in free will. I think Dennett has logically reversed the relationship between ideal and reality. If a thing doesn't exist, we can't need it; and that thing exists, then our proof of it must be logically proved and inferred. We can prove the existence and influence of human thinking by tracing the path of human thinking even if it belongs to the subjective thinking within the scope of ideology. And Danit subjectively thinks we have just because of our needs, which easily reminds us of the Lutheran Protestantism that can be saved by faith. This proof is blind, lacks the strictness in logic, is only a subjective cognitive revolution and self-liberation. But Danit's concern about cultural simplification in the process of globalization is far-sighted. The progress of human civilization requires diversity of human culture, harmony rather than a thousand people, which makes it possible for us to make progress in human civilization.
【学位授予单位】：山西大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D09

【相似文献】