在上节课最后 At the end of last class,
我说从现在开始 I suggested that from here on out
我将假设灵魂不存在 I'm going to be assuming that there is no soul.
并从物理主义者的观点 I'm going to be discussing the issues
来讨论这些问题 that we turn to here after from the perspective of the physicalist,
物理主义学认为 从本质上来说 the person who says that a person
人只是上帝精心设计的一具肉体 is basically just a fancy body--
它可以做某些特殊事情 a body that can do certain special tricks,
并按特定的方式运作 a body that can function in certain ways
如此这般 我们就将其称之为人 that we associate with being a person,
也就是具备人体功能的肉体 a body that can P-function, as we put it.
现在我已经向你们解释了 Now, I've given you my reasons
我为什么不相信灵魂存在 for believing there are no souls.
基本上 各种各样 Basically, that the various arguments
支持灵魂存在的论证 that might be offered for believing in souls
都不大经得起检验 don't seem very compelling upon examination,
所以没什么好的理由 so there's no good reason
可以证明这一额外实体的存在 to posit this extra entity.
大多数时候 For the most part, then,
我会把灵魂置于一边 避而不谈 I'm going to be putting aside soul talk.
我会时不时 Periodically, I'll come back and talk about
来讲讲那些 how some issue that we are considering
看似是从灵魂存在论角度 might look from the perspective of somebody
得出的观点 who does believe in souls.
但正如我所说 大多数时候 But, as I say, for the most part,
我会假设灵魂不存在 I'm going to be assuming there are no souls.
对于你们当中仍然 For those of you who still do believe
相信灵魂存在的人 in the existence of souls,
我想你们可以 I suppose you could take a great deal of
从接下来的大讨论中获益匪浅 the discussion that follows
前提条件假设或虚拟方式都可以 as some form of large conditional or subjunctive.
如果灵魂不存在 If there were no souls,
接下来就是我们要讨论的东西 then here's what we'd have to say.
所以即使我 So although I'll be largely talking
从物理主义者的角度高谈阔论 from the perspective of the physicalist,
但如果你还是不能信服物理主义 if you haven't become convinced of the truth of physicalism,
那就顺其自然吧 so be it.
如果我们认为人本质上只是一具肉体 We'll at least explore what will we say about death
我们至少要探讨一下大家会怎么看待死亡 if we've decided that people are basically just bodies?
还记得这学期刚开始时我说过 Now, you'll recall that at the start of the semester I said,
想想这个问题 我能免于一死吗 in thinking about the question, could I survive my death?
这里我们要先弄清两个问题 there were two basic things we had to get clear on.
第一 我们得弄清我是什么 First, we had to get clear on, what am I?
我由什么组成 What are my parts?
这就是为什么我们花了几星期的时间 That's why we spent the last several weeks
来担心我是否只是一具肉体 worrying about the question, am I just a body?
亦或是肉体与非物质灵魂的结合体 Am I a body and an immaterial soul as well?
又或者 严格来说只是灵魂而已 Or perhaps, strictly speaking, just the soul?
思考完这个问题 Having looked at that question,
现在我们来看第二个基本问题 we're now going to turn to the second basic question,
如果存活下来会是什么样 what would it be to survive?
这样一个东西继续存在的话 What would it be for a thing like that
会是什么样呢 to continue to exist?
当然 我们更会这样问 Now, of course, we're going to ask most particularly,
这样一个东西如果肉体不死的话 what would it be for a thing like that
会是什么样呢 to survive the death of the body?
甚至人是否真得可能 Could it even make sense for a person
肉体不死呢 to survive the death of his body?
如果你是个物理主义者 You might think the answer to that is no,
你也许会认为这是不可能的 但事实上 if we are physicalists, but in fact,
答案未必如此 it's not so clear the answer to that is no.
为了说明这一特殊的问题 But in order to address that particular question--
如果我肉体不死的话 那将如何呢 What is for me to survive the death of my body?
有没有这种可能呢 Is that even a possibility or not?
首先我们得搞清楚一个更基本的问题 We first have to get clear about the more general question,
幸存一段时间 对我来说意味着什么 what is it for me to survive, period?
举个大家都熟悉的例子 Take the more familiar hum-drum case.
今天我站在这里给你们讲课 Here I am lecturing to you today,
今天是周四 Thursday.
毫无疑问 下周二这儿还会 Somebody's going to be here, no doubt,
有人给你们讲课 lecturing to you next week, next Tuesday.
在这一简单的案例中 The question of survival
我们可以提出有关存活的问题 can be asked about that very simple case.
下周二来给你们讲课的那个人 Is the person who's going to be lecturing to you on Tuesday
和现在站在你们面前讲课的这个人 the very same person as the person
是完完全全同一个吗 who is standing in front of you lecturing to you now?
现在这个人能活过这周末吗 Will that person survive the weekend?
我当然希望活过这周末 I certainly expect to survive the weekend.
但活过这周末意味着什么 But what is it to survive the weekend? What is it?
也许我们会说 看 We might say, look,
我们已经得到答案的雏形了 we've already got the beginnings of an answer.
对我来说 活到周二 For me to survive until Tuesday,
可以说就是有人 presumably is for there to be somebody,
能活着在下周二给你们讲课 some person alive lecturing to you on Tuesday,
关键是 and--here's the crucial point--
下周二来给你们讲课的人 for that person lecturing to you on Tuesday
和今天 这周四 to be the very same person
给你们讲课的人是同一个人 as the person lecturing to you today, on Thursday.
如果我这周末 If I were to be killed
死于空难 in a plane accident this weekend
那么下周二就会有人来代课 and there was a guest lecturer for you on Tuesday,
还是会有一个活人来给你们讲课 there'd be somebody alive lecturing to you.
但是 肯定不会是我 But, of course, that wouldn't be me.
所以我们要弄清楚的问题就是 So the question we want to get clear on is,
下周二来讲课的人 what is it for somebody on Tuesday
和现在在这里和你们交谈的是同一个人 to be the same person as the person here
意味着什么 talking to you on Thursday?
我们可以问得更宏观些 We can ask the question more grandly,
把时间拉长 about larger expanses of time.
假设有人活到 Suppose there's somebody alive
四十多年后 40-odd years from now,
在二零五零年 in the year 2050.
那个人会是我吗 Could that be me?
问我能否活到二零五零年 To ask, have I survived until 2050?
也就是问在二零五零年活着的那个人 is to ask, is that person who's alive in 2050
和现在站在这里 the very same person as the person
给你们讲课的人是否同一个人 who's standing here now lecturing to you?
未来的某人 What is it for somebody in the future
和现在在这里的某人 to be the very same person
是同一个人 这意味着什么 as this person who's here now today?
思考这个问题的时候 Now, in thinking about this question,
思考这个问题 thinking about this question,
千万不要误解 it's important not to
我们问的问题 misunderstand what we're asking.
有些人也许会误解我的问题 Some of you may misunderstand what I'm asking.
有些人会说 Some of you may want to say,
"现在讲课的这家伙 "Look, the person lecturing to you now
至少头上还有几根毛 has at least a fair bit of his hair.
留着胡子 He's got a beard.
假设二零五零年的那个人 Let's suppose that the person alive in 2050
头也秃了 背也驼了 胡子也掉光了 is bald and bent over, has no beard.
他们怎么会是同一个人呢 How could they be the same person?
一个有头发 一个没有 One's got hair, one doesn't.
一个有胡子 一个没有 One's got a beard, one doesn't.
一个能站直 一个驼背 One stands straight, one's crooked.
不可能是同一个人" It can't be the same person."
这就错了 That's the mistake
我们一定要弄清这个问题 that it's important for us to get clear about.
我会花点时间讲些 So I'm going to spend some time talking about examples
不太难懂的例子 that I think we would not find puzzling,
帮大家逐渐理解人格同一性 and work our way back up to the case of personal identity.
首先我想用些大家熟悉的实物来谈谈 So first I'm going to say some things about
贯穿时间的同一性 identity across time, or indeed initially, identity across space
或者更深入些 贯穿空间的同一性 with some familiar,hum-drum, material objects.
我们开始吧 So, let's start.
假设你和我走在一起 看到一辆火车 Suppose you and I are walking along and we see a train.
我先把火车画下来 So let me draw the train first.
我画得不好 不过 I'm not a very good artist, but...
搞定 All right.
这就是火车 There's our train.
我们开始走 We start walking.
我指着最后一节车厢 I point to the caboose.
我来把它画得更像车尾 Let's make this look more like a caboose,
稍微更像一点 slightly more like a caboose.
这样就不那么像车头了 Just so it doesn't look too much like the locomotive.
我指着车尾说 I point to the caboose and I say,
"看那辆火车" "Look at that train."
然后我们一直走 一直走 And we're walking along, we're walking along,
一直走 we're walking along.
走到火车这一头 We come to the end of the train
然后我指着车头说 and I point to the locomotive and I say,
"哇 这辆火车真长 "Wow! Look how long that train is!
这和我五分钟前指着的是同一辆车 That's the very same train I pointed to five minutes ago.
我们一直在沿着它走" We've been walking along it all this time."
现在 想象一下你说 Now, imagine that you say--
你肯定不会说这么傻的话 you wouldn't say anything as stupid as this,
但想象一下假设你这么说 你说 but imagine that you said this--you say,
"这不是我们五分钟前 "This isn't the same train
指着的那辆车 as the train we pointed to five minutes ago.
毕竟 你现在 After all, right now
指着的是车头 what you're pointing to is a locomotive,
而五分钟前 whereas five minutes ago
你指着的是车尾 what you pointed to was a caboose.
车头和车尾不一样 A caboose isn't the same thing as a locomotive.
你怎么能说是同一辆车呢 How could you possibly say it's the same thing?
谁会犯这样的错误呢 Who could possibly make a mistake like that?
车头会冒烟 The locomotive's got smoke coming out of it.
车尾不会 The caboose doesn't.
诸如此类 And so forth and so on.
两者之间差别那么大 There's a lot of differences between the two.
你怎么会犯这么低级的错误呢" How could you make such a silly mistake?"
当然 Well, of course,
我接下来会对你说 what I would then want to say to you is,
"不 事实上 你才是犯错的那个" "No, actually, you're the one who's making the mistake."
我当然同意 I agree, of course,
车头和车尾不同 that a locomotive is not the same thing as a caboose.
但我也没说他们一样啊 But I wasn't claiming that it was.
相反 虽然我们开始走的时候 Rather, initially when we started our walk,
我指的是车尾 I pointed to a caboose,
但我所指的车尾 but by pointing to the caboose,
是说这整辆火车 I picked out a train.
我说"看这辆火车" I said, "Look at that train."
我想说的并不是车尾 And what I was referring to wasn't just the caboose,
而是这一整个长长的 but the whole, long,
占了很大空间的东西 extended-through-space object,
是这辆火车 车尾只是它其中的一部分 the train, of which the caboose was just a part.
当我们走到头时 And when--At the end of our walk
我指着车头说 when I pointed to a locomotive and said,
"看这辆火车" "Look at that train,"
我所指的车头 By pointing to the locomotive,
也是指的这整辆火车 I was picking out a train, an entire train.
这个长长的占了很大空间的东西 火车 This long, extended-through-space object, the train.
当我说 And when I said,
"我现在指着的这辆车 "This train that I'm pointing to now
和我五分钟前 is the very same train
指着的是同一辆车时" as the train I pointed to five minutes ago,"
我并非睁眼说瞎话 I'm not saying what is certainly false.
我不是在说车头 I'm not saying the locomotive
和车尾是同一个东西 is the same thing as the caboose.
相反 我的意思是 Rather, what I'm saying is,
我现在指着的 the entire extended-through-space train
这一整辆占了很大空间的火车 that I'm pointing out now
和我五分钟前 is the same train
指着的那一整辆大火车 as the entire extended-through-space train
是同一辆 that I picked out five minutes ago.
这话根本没错 事实就是这样 And that claim, far from being false, is true.
正如我所说 没人会犯那样的错误 Now, as I say, none of us would make that mistake.
但倘若你一不留神 就很容易犯这种错 But it's a tempting mistake if you're not being careful.
而当我们开始考虑人格同一性的问题时 And that mistake might mislead us
这种错误就会误导我们 if we start thinking about the personal identity case.
我们再来说说火车 But let's continue with the train for a bit.
假设 Suppose,
我们走的时候 as we're taking our walk,
有一部分火车看不到 part of the train isn't visible.
有一间很大的仓库 There's a large warehouse
挡住了视线 that's blocking the view.
我们一直走 We're walking along the way.
然后看到车尾 我说 We see a caboose. I say,
"哈 这有辆火车" "Ha! There's a train."
我们又走了一会儿 但什么也没看到 Then for a while we're walking, we don't see anything,
因为只能看到仓库 because all you can see is the warehouse.
当我们走过仓库之后 And then after we get past the warehouse,
一间很长很长的仓库 a very long, block-long warehouse,
我又看到车头了 于是说 I see a locomotive and I say,
"看 这有辆火车" 然后我问你 "Hey look. There's a train." And then I ask you,
"你认为这辆火车 "Do you think this is the same train
和我们之前指的那辆是一样的吗" as the train we pointed to before?"
再说一次 千万别把这个问题理解错了 Now again, it's important not to misunderstand that question.
我并不是问 That question is not asking,
"我们现在指着的这个车头 Is the locomotive that we're pointing to now
和我们之前指着的那节车尾是不是一样" the same as the caboose that we pointed to earlier?"
不 当然不一样 No, of course not.
车头与车尾是不一样的 The locomotive's not the same as the caboose.
不过那并不是我问的问题 But that's not what I'm asking.
我实际上问的是 What I'm asking rather is...
还记得我之前指的那节车尾吗 Remember earlier when I pointed to the caboose?
我指着车尾说这辆火车 In doing so, and I started talking about a train,
我实际上说的是 I was picking out some
这占据了很大空间的一整辆火车 entire extended-through-space train.
现在 我指着车头 Right now, in pointing to a locomotive,
我说的并不仅仅是这节车头 I'm picking out not just the locomotive.
我想说的是整辆火车 I mean to be talking about an entire train.
这占据了很大空间的一整辆火车 Some entire extended-through-space train.
我问的也不是关于车头和车尾的问题 And I'm asking not about the locomotive and the caboose,
而是在问火车 but rather I'm asking about the trains
车头和车尾指代的这两辆火车 that I pick out by means of the locomotive and caboose.
它们是同一辆火车吗 Are they the same train?
而这个问题的答案是 And the answer is,
"不清楚 说不上来 "Don't know; can't tell.
这栋建筑挡住视线了" The building's blocking the view."
假设我们都有X光眼 Suppose we had x-ray vision
可以看穿这栋建筑 and could see through the building.
那么答案就会变成 Then the answer would be,
"你看 如果我们看到的是这样的东西 "Well look, if what we've got is something like this,
毫无疑问 我们只有这一辆火车" then of course, we do have one single train."
我们在步行结束时 The extended-through-space train
指的那辆占据很大空间的火车 I picked out at the end of our walk
就是我们在步行开始时 is the same as the extended-through-space train
指的那辆 that I picked out at the beginning of our walk.
不过情况也可能不是那样的 But it might not turn out that way.
如果我拥有X光眼 It might turn out if I had x-ray vision,
我也有可能看到这样的情形 that what I'd see is this.
那样的话 答案就变成了 Then the answer would be,
"这里并不是一辆火车 而是两辆" "Ah, there's not one train here, but two trains."
我指着车头所说的那辆 The extended-through-space train that I'm picking out
占据了很大空间的火车 when I point to the locomotive turns out
实际上与我指着车尾 to be a different train
说的那辆火车 from the extended-through-space train
不是同一辆 I picked out when I pointed to the caboose.
不过我并不没有X光眼 I don't have x-ray vision.
因此我并不知道这两个形而上学的假设 I don't know which of these metaphysical hypotheses
哪一个是正确的 is the correct one.
好了 All right.
关于火车的简单讨论到此为止 Easy enough with trains.
我们已经清楚火车的这一系列问题了 We know how it works with trains.
现在我们来讨论一些 Now let's talk about something
稍微复杂点的问题 not a whole lot more complicated.
汽车 Cars.
我曾在1990年买过一辆车 I used to have a car I bought in 1990.
我画汽车的水平比我 My ability to draw cars is even worse
画火车的水平更烂 than my ability to draw trains.
这就是我的车 There's my car.
1990年的时候还很新 In 1990, it was new.
闪闪发光 It was sparkly.
在被我开了几年之后 Then I drove it for some years
车上面就多了些凹痕之类的东西 and I got some dents and so forth and so on.
给它画个微笑 Here's a smile.
到了1996年或2000年 By 1996 or 2000,
它看上去就不大好了 it wasn't looking so good.
闪光没有了 上面又多了几个凹痕 The sparkle had gone. It had a couple of dents.
这就是2000年的车 That was the car in 2000.
到了2006年 By 2006,
它上面已经有很多凹痕了 it had a lot of dents,
到了2006年 这辆车再也开不动了 2006, when it finally died.
好了 All right.
现在我们都理解 Now we all understand the claim
我在2006年拥有的那辆车跟 that the car I had in 2006 was the very same car
我在1990年拥有的那辆是同一辆车 as the car I had in 1990.
当然 再说一遍 Of course, again,
你得小心 千万别把问题理解错 you've got to be careful not to misunderstand what's being said.
我们都知道在2006年时 We all know that in 2006
车上有很多刮痕 the car had a lot of scratches
有一侧还被猛烈地撞击过 and had gotten banged in on one side
由于刮痕太多 油漆脱落 还生了锈 and pretty sorry looking in terms of the scrapes
整辆车看上去十分难看 and the paint job and the rust.
相比1990年时的这辆车 Whereas, the car in 1990,
却是崭新发亮 漆面平滑 new and shiny and smooth.
你也许会说 You might say
2006年这辆车所处的阶段 the 2006 car stage
明显不同于 is obviously not the same thing
1990年这辆车所处的阶段 as the 1990 car stage.
这问题就很像 That's like thinking that the locomotive's
讨论车头与车尾是否相同一样了 the same thing as the caboose.
不过当我说同一辆汽车时 But when I say it's the same car,
我说的不是车的所处阶段 I don't mean to be talking about car stages.
我要说的仅仅只是 I mean to be talking about a single thing
贯穿了整个时间的这个事物 that was extended through time.
我在1990年 There I am,
作为一位骄傲的新车车主 我会说 proud owner of my new car in 1990 and I say,
"这是一辆车 "This is a car.
一辆能够存在不止几分钟的车 It's a car that will exist for more than a few minutes.
一辆将要持续存在好多年的车" It's a car that will exist for years and years and years,"
尽管在那时我还没有意识到 Though at the time I didn't realize
它将持续存在16年或更久 it was going to last 16 years or longer.
当我提到我的车时 When I refer to my car--as opposed to
不是指车的所处阶段或车的某一部分 what we could dub the car stage or the car slice--
当我提到1990年的车时 when I refer to the car in 1990,
我指的是 I mean to be talking about
贯穿时间的这整个事物 the entire extended-through-time object.
当我2006年指着那一堆废铁时 In 2006, when I point to that sad heap
说"我拥有这辆车16年了" and talk about, "I've had that car for 16 years."
我并不是拥有这辆车的所处阶段16年 Well, I haven't had that car stage for 16 years.
既不是车的所处阶段也不是车的某个部分 That car stage or that car slice,
如果我们非要这么说的话 if we wanted to talk about it that way,
其实仅仅只存在了 has only been around for however long,
几个月 几年 一年而已 months, years, a year.
它并没有存在16年之久 It hasn't been around for 16 years.
不过当我说道那辆车时 But when I talk about that car,
我说的并不只是这车现在的某一部分 I'm picking not just the current slice
或是这车现在所处的某个阶段 or the current stage of the car,
而是贯穿时间的这一整个物体 but the entire extended-through-time object.
当我说 When I say,
"这就是我开了16年的那辆车"时 "That's the very same car I've had for 16 years,"
我的意思是 I mean...
通过指着现在的某一部分 Think of the object extended through time that
所指代的那个贯穿了时间的事物 I'm picking out by pointing to the current slice.
与我在16年前 That's the very same extended-through-time object
通过指着当时某一部分所指代的事物 that I picked out 16 years ago
是同一个贯穿时间的物体 by pointing to what was then the current slice.
所指的部分并不相同 The slices aren't the same;
但车却是同一辆车 the car is the same.
两辆车是一样的 It's the very same car.
现在我们来想象一个更复杂的问题 Well, now let's imagine a somewhat more difficult case.
在2006年底 我的发动机坏了 At the end of 2006, my engine failed.
我把车卖给了一个商人 收废品的 I sold the car to a dealer, junk dealer.
假设在2010年 Suppose that in 2010
我在废品站里看到了一辆车 I see a car in the junk lot
它看起来是如此的熟悉 and it looks familiar to me.
我说"哇哦 那是我的车" I say, "Whoa! That's my car."
它到底是不是我的车呢 Is it or isn't it my car?
这就有点类似于 This is sort of like the case
工厂挡住视线的那个例子 with the factory blocking the view.
1990年至2006年 这很好判断 1990 to 2006, very easy.
我可以天天在自家车库里看到那辆车 Saw the car every day in my garage.
不过现在我们有四年 But here is a four-year--
与工厂挡住视线不同的是 Instead of a factory blocking my view,
这次是时间的迷雾遮挡了我们的视线 it's the mists of time blocking my view.
而我的问题是"这还是我的那辆车吗" And I ask, "Same car or not?"
这一次 Again, by this time,
我觉得你们已经不需要我提醒了 I imagine you don't need to be warned,
不过我还是要再提醒几次 but let me just warn you a couple more times.
我问的并不是 I'm not asking,
"这辆车2010年所处的阶段 "Is the car stage, the 2010 car stage,
跟2006年那辆车的所处阶段一样吗" the same car stage as the 2006 car stage?"
也许不一样 也许很不一样 Maybe not. Maybe obviously not.
我问的是 I'm asking rather...
通过指着这辆车2010年的所处阶段 in pointing to the 2010 car stage,
我指的其实是整个 I mean to be picking out an entire
贯穿了时间的实体 即这辆车 extended-through-time entity, the car.
所以我的问题是 And I'm asking,
"那个贯穿时间的实体与我之前 "Is that the very same extended-through-time entity
拥有的贯穿时间的实体是一样的吗" as the extended-through-time entity that I used to own?"
我很想知道 可答案却是"不知道" I wonder. And the answer is, "Don't know."
时间的迷雾挡住了我的视线 The mists of time are blocking my view.
所以我不知道答案是什么 I don't know the answer.
不过我们知道有哪几种可能存在 But we know what the possibilities are.
一种可能是 是同一辆车 One possibility is that indeed it's the very same--
我就不画全了 就画个2008年的 I won't draw it all, 2008 and so forth.
它可能是我之前的那辆车 It could be the very same car.
如果我们知道 If we knew what it took to have
这车的每个所处阶段的话 the various stages of a car
那它们加起来和那辆车就是一样的 add up to the very same car,
这就是其中一种可能 then that would be one possibility.
不过还有另一种不同的可能 But there might be a different possibility.
也有可能是 It could have been that after
在我把车卖给废品商后 I sold it to the junk dealer,
他把车碾毁 he crushed it,
把它变成了一堆金属块 turned it into a heap of metal
那就是我的车子的终点 and that was the end of my car.
而我2010年在废品站看到的那辆车 And the car I'm seeing on the dealer's lot in 2010
也许是另外一辆有着自己历史的汽车 might be some other car with its own history.
我们想要知道的是 What we're wondering about is,
是否只有一个 is there a single--
这里有一个专业术语 well, here's a piece of jargon
是否只有一个"时空虫" --is there a single "Space-time worm" here
还是有两个呢 Or are there two?
当我在2010年看到那辆车时 我说 When I look at the car in 2010 and say,
"这有辆车 "There's a car.
我想知道它是否是我的那辆" I wonder if it's the same car,"
我问的是这件贯穿了 I'm asking about this thing that's extended--
很明显它也贯穿了空间 well, obviously through space,
因为车辆总是要占点空间 since cars take up some space--
并且贯穿了时间的物体 and through time.
看起来有点像虫子 Looks a bit like a worm.
所以哲学家们称其为时空虫 So philosophers call them space-time worms.
那么这辆车的时空虫 Is the space-time worm that makes up this car
和组成我之前那辆车的时空虫是一样的吗 the same space-time worm as the one that made up my car?
是同一条虫 还是有两条呢 One worm there or two?
答案也许是 And the answer might be,
"不知道 我们需要更多的事实根据" "Don't know, need to have more facts."
不过至少找到了我们需要解决的问题 But at least that's what the question is.
现在 Now
从形而上学的角度来看 metaphysically,
有很多种方法可以提出 there's different ways of trying to pose the set of issues
我开始时谈到的那一系列的论点 that I've begun to talk about.
我们是否该说 Should we say,
正如我们谈到火车时提到的 as we might say with the train,
一辆火车是由 the train is made up out of
不同的车厢组成 包括车头和车尾 the various cars, the locomotive, the caboose,
以及中间的车厢 and the intervening cars?
那么火车 我们一般会这样看火车 So the train--that's the way we normally think about trains,
至少我个人是这么看的 at least the way I normally think about trains--
火车有点像三明治 对吧 the train's a bit like a sandwich, right?
从形而上学的角度来看 基本组成部分 The metaphysically fundamental things
就是车尾 车头和中间的车厢 are the caboose, the locomotives, the intervening trains.
如果它们以正确的方式连接起来 If they're glued together in the right way,
它们就组成了一辆火车 they make up a train.
那从形而上学的角度来看 What's the right kind of
火车是被什么连接起来的呢 metaphysical glue for trains?
它是由那些小车钩连接起来的 Well, it's being connected with those little locks.
这可能是 也可能不是正确思考 That may or may not be the right way to think about
我提到的汽车所处阶段或组成部分的方法 what I've been calling car stages or car slices.
从某些形而上学的角度来看 On some metaphysical views,
你可能会说 正如火车一样 you might say, just exactly like with the train,
汽车的各个阶段是形而上学中的基本部分 the car stages are the metaphysically fundamental things
而一辆汽车 一个贯穿时间的物体 and a car, something extended through time,
由汽车的各个阶段连接起来 is glued together like a sandwich
就像一个三明治一样 from the car stages.
我们可能又会想 And then, we might worry about
那汽车的形而上学的粘合剂又是什么呢 what's the relevant metaphysical glue for cars.
从其它形而上学的角度来看 On other metaphysical views,
汽车本身才是最重要的 no what's really prior is the car itself,
而谈论汽车的各个阶段只是为图方便 and talking about car stages is a certain convenience,
这样可将基本物体即汽车 切分开来 a kind of way of chopping up the fundamental thing, the car.
因此 用加州大学洛杉矶分校的哲学家 So, to use an analogy that I think David Kaplan,
提出的比喻来说 a philosopher at UCLA offers,
你可以将其想象成 it's as though you have to think of
一根能够切片的大腊肠或意大利肠 it more like a bologna or salami that you can slice.
某些情况下你可以谈论它的切片 If--For certain purposes you can talk about slices,
但根本上它还是意大利腊肠 but the fundamental thing's the salami. All right.
说到车 In thinking about cars,
我们是否该说 should we say
构成汽车的基本要素 that the fundamental thing
是它所处的各个阶段 is the car stages
像三明治一样把它们连起来 and they get put together like a sandwich
就构成汽车了 to make cars?
还是应该说基本要素 Or should we think that the fundamental thing
是这辆贯穿时间的车 is the car extended through time
它可以被分割成各个阶段 and it can be sliced up to make car stages?
基于我们的目的 For our purposes,
我认为不需要讨论这个 I think we won't have to go there.
这些都不重要 It doesn't really matter.
只要我们接受 As long as we're comfortable talking about
时空虫 汽车 entire space-time worms, the cars,
以及它的部分或者阶段这些说法即可 and the slices or the stages.
我们并不是非得问 We don't have to ask
哪种说法更为形而上学 which is metaphysically prior.
你还会注意到 我会提出 You should also notice that-I should also mention that
一些其它形而上学的观点 there are other metaphysical views
有关物体随时间流逝到底是怎么回事 about what goes on when an object exists over time.
我这样做是为了引出一个建议 I've been here helping myself to the suggestion
即我们应像思考空间延伸一样 that we should think about extension over time
以同样的方式思考时间的延伸 analogously to the way we think about extension over space.
这也是为何我开始以空间为例 即火车 That's why I started with a spatial example, the train,
然后才提出时间的例子 即汽车 and moved to the temporal example, the car.
然而有些哲学家认为 And there are those philosophers
这种思考方式是错误的 who think that's exactly the right way to think about it
他们认为 and those philosophers that think
不对不对 这是一种误导 no, no, that's misleading.
他们认为当物体贯穿时间时 When an object is extended over time,
其实是这整个物体 really the entire object's right there
存在于每一个时刻 at every single moment.
这个问题很有趣 也很困难 These are interesting and difficult questions.
但同样 基于我们的目的 But again, I think for our purposes,
我们无须讨论这些 we don't have to go there.
因此我将用时空虫 So I will help myself to this language of
这个术语来说明 space-time worms,
物体不仅具有空间维度 objects that extend not only over space
也具有时间维度 but also over time.
注意要将整个时空虫 And distinguish the entire worm
与其构成部分或所处阶段区分开来 from the various slices or stages
即时空虫的组成部分 that either make up the worm
或者说将其分割成的东西 or that we could slice the worm into.
我一直强调的重点 The point that I've been emphasizing is,
第一个就是 well first point, of course, has been,
"不要把阶段 "Don't confuse the stages
与整体的时空虫搞混了" with the entire space-time worm."
阶段可以不同 The stages can differ
而且不需要时空虫变化 without the entire space-time worm
阶段就可以不同 being a different worm.
我讲的第二个重点就是 Second question I've hinted at that we're about to turn to,
虽然现在还没讲到 not literally turn to at the moment,
但马上会说的是 but shortly we'll turn to is,
"相应的粘合物是什么" "What's the relevant glue?"
是什么将同一样东西 What makes two stages,
划分为两个阶段 stages of the very same thing?
在我举的火车那个例子中 这很明显 In the case of trains, as I say, it's fairly obvious.
但在汽车的例子中呢 What is it in the case of cars?
是什么将这辆 What makes the 1990 car stage
贯穿时空的车 a stage in the very same car,
划分为1990年 the extended through space and time worm car,
和2006年这两个阶段的呢 as the 2006 stage?
将这些阶段粘合起来的 What's the metaphysical glue
形而上学的粘合物又是什么 that glues these stages together?
答案就是 虽然还存在疑问 And the answer, not that there aren't puzzles about it,
但答案大致上就是 but the answer is roughly,
"如果车的每块金属材料 "It's the very same car
每块塑料 电线都是相同的 if it's the very same hunk of metal
那这就是同一辆车" and plastic and wires."
这是之前那辆车 There was the car.
由金属 塑料 A car is just some metal and plastic,
和橡胶构成 rubber.
并且这些材料从2000年 And that very same hunk continued into 2000
一直延续到2006年 and it continued into 2006.
所以判断这两辆车 The glue, the key
在跨越时间后是否是同一辆车的关键 to identity across time for cars,
便是构成它的每一块材料是否相同 is being the same hunk of stuff.
但这并不是说 Now, that doesn't mean
构成车的每一个原子都要相同 it's got to be the same atom for atom.
我们知道那是不可能的 We know that's not true.
比方说我的方向盘 Look, think about my steering wheel.
每次我抓着方向盘开车的时候 Every time I grabbed the steering wheel to drive,
都会磨损掉成千上万的原子 I wore away thousands of atoms.
即使丢失一些原子 You can lose some atoms
它仍然是同一个方向盘 and still be the very same steering wheel.
时不时的 我还会换车胎 Every now and then, I'd replace the tires on my car.
但尽管如此 这车还是没变 But for all that, it was the same hunk of stuff.
这又引出了一个有趣的问题 Now this raises an interesting issue.
到底改变多少部件后 How many changes of the constituent parts
可以使得车仍然是同一辆车呢 can you have and still be the same hunk of stuff?
如果这门课要求我们思考 If this was a class in which we were going to worry about
贯穿时间的同一性的普遍问题的话 the general problem of identity across time,
我们便应该直视这一问题 this would be a problem we'd have to directly face.
但既然我们只是通过 But since we are only looking at enough
同一性这个问题来引出 of the problem of identity to get to the question
我们真正要思考的问题 that we really want to think about,
即贯穿时间的人格同一性的本质 the nature of personal identity across time,
所以我不打算继续讲那些问题 I'm not going to pursue that.
我只想指出 I just want to flag the thought
随着时间的推移 that you can be the very same hunk of stuff,
即使构成物体的原子发生了改变 even if some of the constituent atoms
它仍然可能是同一样物体 have changed along the way.
即便更大的部分发生变化 And even bigger parts.
你可以将车头灯换掉 You can replace the headlights
但它仍然是同一部车 and still be the same hunk of stuff.
总之 在汽车这一例子中 Anyway, that's what's gone on in the car case,
1990年到2006年是同一辆车 same hunk of stuff 1990-2006.
而我于2010年在废品商看到一辆车 And when I see the car on the junk dealer's yard in 2010
并问"这是我的车吗" and ask, "Is that my car or not?"
答案便取决于 只要我们知道 The answer lies in--if only we could know--
构成它的材料是否相同 is that the same hunk of stuff or not?
这就是关键 形而上的粘合剂就是 That's what the key. The metaphysical glue is,
存在相同的材料 being the same hunk of stuff.
好了 来看我们真正关心的问题 All right, let's turn now to the case we really wonder about,
人格同一性 personal identity.
这里有一个人 Here's somebody
正在给你们上课 lecturing to you
在2007年 in 2007,
雪莱·卡根 Shelly Kagan.
我们想象2050年也有个人 We imagine there's somebody in 2050
我们问 "他是雪莱·卡根吗" and we ask, "Is that Shelly Kagan?"
我们暂且叫他"X先生" We'll call him "Mr. X."
我们问 "他俩是同一个人吗" We ask,"Is that the same person or not?"
再提醒一下 Now again, at this point
不要陷入一个误区 you're not going to be tempted by the mistake.
我并不是在问 I'm not asking,
"这个X先生所处的人生阶段 "Is this person stage Mr. X
是否与雪莱·卡根2007版完全相同呢" the same person stage as SK 2007?"
当然不是 Obviously not.
雪莱·卡根2007版还留有头发 SK 2007 has still got his hair,
蓄着胡子 站得还多少有些笔直 has the beard, stands up more or less straight.
X先生头也秃了 胡子也掉光了 Mr. X is bald, doesn't have a beard.
我想应该把他画成个驼背 I suppose I should have drawn him bent.
我画得像吗 再加个小拐棍 Can I do that? A little cane.
我并不是问 I'm not asking,
"这个X先生所处的人生阶段 "Is the person stage Mr. X
是否与雪莱·卡根2007版完全相同呢" the same as the person stage SK 2007?"
好像在说电脑什么的 Sounds like a computer or something.
快去买雪莱·卡根2007版 Get the SK 2007!
我问的不是这个 I'm not asking that.
我问的是 我说的是 I'm asking, I'm saying,
"看 "Look,
当你看到当前的阶段 when you look at the current stage,
当前这个人并且开始想象成 the current person slice and think about
这一整个贯穿时间的实体 the entire extended-through-time entity,
组成雪莱·卡根这个人 the person that makes up Shelly Kagan,
或者说那就是雪莱·卡根 or that is Shelly Kagan,
这个人是否与你脑中那个 is that the very same person
贯穿时间的 as the extended-through-time person
2050年的X先生 that you got in mind when you point to
是同一个人呢" the Mr. X 2050?"
他们所处的人生阶段显然是不同的 The stages are obviously different.
但是通过观察这些阶段 But by looking at the stages,
我们辨认出了 we pick out
组成这个人的时空虫 a space-time worm that makes up a person.
然后我们问 And we're asking,
"它与我们之前得出的那个时空虫 "Is that the very same space-time worm
是同一个吗 as the one we picked out previously
亦或是 它与我们之前得到的时空虫 or a different space-time worm
不一样" than the one we picked out previously?"
估计答案会是 And the answer, presumably, is going to be,
"这取决于 "Well it depends on getting clear on
这些阶段是否以正确的 whether the stages are glued together
形而上的方式被连接起来" in the right metaphysical way."
接着我们就会想知道 And so, what we'd like to know is, well,
是什么将一个 what does it take for two person stages
贯穿时间的人 to make up or be part of
划分为两个人生阶段的呢 the very same extended-through-time person?
将一个贯穿时间的人 What's the metaphysical glue
粘合起来形而上地粘合剂又是什么 that underlies being a single extended-through-time person?
人格同一性的关键是什么 What's the key to personal identity?
如果我们能够清楚地知道 If we could get clear about
那个形而上学的问题的答案 what the answer to that metaphysical question,
即人格同一性的关键是什么 the key to personal identity,
我们至少就可以知道 we'd at least know
下面这个问题的答案 what we needed to find out to answer the question,
"这是同一个人吗 "Is this one person or two?
这些部分是否以正确的方式粘合起来" Are the pieces glued together in the right way?"
另一个问题 Different question,
我们希望最终能得到答案的问题 the question that we're ultimately hoping to get an answer to.
"我能幸免一死吗" "Could I survive my death?"
再回想一下我们开始提的那个问题 Well look, think again about the question we started with.
我能活过这个周末吗 Could I survive the weekend?
要活过这个周末 To survive the weekend,
必须得有一个活人 there's got to be somebody who's alive,
在下周二活着 some person on Tuesday
并且这个人与你们现在看到的 and that person's got to be the very same person
你们现在想到的这个人 as the person you're looking at now,
是同一个人 you're thinking about now.
或者从阶段的角度看 Or to put it in terms of stages,
那个人 那个阶段 that person's got to be--that stage,
那个部分必须和 that slice has to be part of
现在这个阶段 the very same extended-through-time
同属于一个时空虫 space-time worm as this stage is.
它们得按正确的方式粘合起来 They've got to be glued together in the right way.
我们还不能确定 We can't tell whether that's true
除非我们弄清粘合物究竟是什么 until we know what the glue is.
但至少我们能够预期 But at least we anticipate that, well,
下周二会有某个人在这里 there will be somebody here on Tuesday
他会被正确地粘合起来 who is glued together in that way, the right way,
不管结果到底是什么 whatever that turns out to be.
这些阶段将会被正确地粘合 The stages will be glued together in the right way.
假如我再问 Suppose I asked then,
"我能幸免一死吗" "Will I survive my death?"
好吧 我会乐观一点 All right, so I'm going to be optimistic.
我假设自己活到2040年 I'm going to assume that I make it to 2040.
2040 2040? 668
我还不到90岁 I won't even be 90 yet.
我还不到90岁 That's not too wildly optimistic.
不算过于乐观 It's optimistic, but not wildly optimistic.
乐观 但不过分乐观 So here's the SK 2040.
所以这位是雪莱·卡根2040版 We know that
我们知道 there's an extended through space and time,
有一个贯穿时空的 space-time worm, a person.
时空虫 一个人 Then let's suppose, sadly,
然后假设 2041 my body dies.
我不幸于2041年去世 And I ask, "Could I survive my death,
那么我问 "我能够幸免一死吗 that is to say, the death of my body?"
其实是说 肉体死亡后我还能幸存吗" Well, we want to know, after 2041,
我们想知道 在2041年之后 let's say 2045,
例如2045年 is there somebody who's a person,
是否存在一个人 call him Mr. X.
代号X先生 Could it be the case
有没有可能 that there'd be a person in 2045,
2045年有一个人 after the death of my body in 2041,
在2041年我的肉体死后 could it be the case that there's a person
有没有可能存在一个人 who is part of the very same space-time worm
是你们现在所想的这条 that you're thinking about right now?
时空虫的一部分 Could that be or not?
有没有可能呢 We can't answer that question
我们没法回答这个问题 until we are clearer about
直到我们弄清楚 what does it take to have identity across time.
到底怎样才能拥有跨越时间的同一性 What's the key to personal identity?
人格同一性的关键是什么 What's the metaphysical glue?
形而上的粘合剂又是什么 Once we get clear about what the
我们一旦弄清楚 relevant metaphysical glue is,
什么是形而上的粘合剂 we'll be in a position to start asking,
我们就可以这么问 "Could this happen or not?"
"这到底可不可能发生呢" All right,
好了 that's the question I want to turn to, then.
这就是我想问的问题 What are the possible positions
在这个问题上 on this question?
有什么可能的情况 What's the key to personal identity?
人格同一性的关键是什么 What's it to be the very same person?
怎样成为同一个人 As we might put it somewhat misleadingly,
就像我们可能多少有点误导地问 what is it for "Two" People
是什么使"两个"人 to really be the same single
成为完全相同的 extended-through-time person?
贯穿时间的同一个人 Suppose we believed in souls.
假设我们相信灵魂存在 Then here would be a natural proposal.
那自然就会提出 The metaphysical key to personal identity
人格同一性的形而上学的关键 is having the very same soul.
在于拥有完全相同的灵魂 So suppose I was a dualist.
假设我是个二元论者 I'd say, "Look, you're looking at a body,
我就会说"看 你看的是一具肉体 but connected in this intimate way with this body
但与这具肉体密切相关的 is a particular soul,
其实是它的灵魂 the soul of Shelly Kagan.
雪莱·卡根的灵魂" What makes it true
为什么说 that the person lecturing to you next Tuesday
下周二要给你们上课的那个人 is Shelly Kagan, the very same person,
是雪莱·卡根 同一个人呢 what makes that true is
是因为他俩的灵魂 that it's the very same soul.
是完全相同的 As long as this soul
只要现在这个灵魂 is here again on Tuesday,
下周二又跑来这里上课 It'll be Shelly Kagan.
那他就还是雪莱·卡根 If it's a different soul,
如果下周二来的不是这个灵魂了 it's not Shelly Kagan."
那他就不是雪莱·卡根了 That's the natural thing to suggest
如果我们相信了这种灵魂论 if we believe in the soul view.
那就很自然会这样想 The key to personal identity--
人格同一性的关键在于 not the only thing a soul theorist can say,
不是灵魂论者只能这么说 but the natural thing for a soul theorist to say--
而是他们自然而然会这么说 the key to personal identity
人格同一性的关键 is having the very same soul.
在于拥有完全相同的灵魂 Same soul, same person.
灵魂同则人同 Different soul, different person.
灵魂不同则人不同 Imagine that God
试想一下上帝 or a demon or what have you,
或者魔鬼 或者诸如此类 for whatever perverse reason,
出于某种不正当的理由 severs the ordinary connection
割断了维系在 between my body and my soul
肉体与灵魂间的联系 and then reconnects the wires, as it were,
然后再重新接上 so that there's a different soul
这样就是一个不同的灵魂 animating and controlling
控制并且附在 this body on Tuesday.
下周二的那个肉体上了 For whatever perverse reasons,
不管出于什么违反常情的原因 maybe to make some sort of philosophical point,
也许为了说明某种哲学观点 that person decides to come in anyway on Tuesday
那个人决定非要下周二来 and lecture to you about philosophy.
给你们上哲学课 According to the view that we're taking,
根据我们提的这种观点 which we'll now call the soul view,
暂且将它称为灵魂论 according to the soul view,
根据灵魂论的说法 it won't be me
下周二来上课的 lecturing to you on Tuesday.
就不是我了 Why not?
为什么呢 Because we've just stipulated
因为我们刚刚规定 it's not the same soul.
这两个灵魂是不同的 It's a different soul.
这是另一个灵魂 The key to personal identity,
人格同一性的关键 according to the soul theory of
根据人格同一性的 personal identity,
灵魂理论 the key to personal identity
人格同一性的关键 is having the same soul.
在于拥有同一个灵魂 When I ask myself,
当我自问 "Will I survive the weekend?"
"我能活过这个周末吗" what I'm asking is,
我其实要问的是 "Will my soul still be around come Tuesday?"
"我的灵魂下周二还会来吗" As long as my soul still exists
只要我的灵魂还在 and is functioning,
还起作用 it's still me. I'm still around.
那就还是我 我就还在 In fact--peeking ahead of course,
事实上 插一句 and this is why we are often drawn to soul views--
这也是为什么我们常被灵魂论所吸引 even if my body dies,
即使我的肉体死亡 as long as my soul continues to exist,
只要我的灵魂仍然存在 I continue to exist.
我就继续存在 The key to personal identity,
根据灵魂论的观点 according to the soul view,
人格同一性的关键 is having the same soul.
在于拥有同一个灵魂 As long as my soul continues to exist,
所以只要我的灵魂还在 it's still me,
就还是我 whether or not my body's still alive.
不论肉体是否还活着 And it's precisely for this reason that at least the soul,
恰恰是因为这个原因 belief in the soul,
相信灵魂存在 combined with the soul theory of personal identity,
并结合人格同一性的灵魂理论 holds out the possibility of surviving my death.
至少提供了幸免于死的可能性 We may not know
我们现在也许还不知道 that the soul will continue to exist
在人的肉体毁灭后 after the destruction of the body,
灵魂是否还会继续存在 but at least it seems like a possibility.
但至少它看似是可能存在的 Plato of course, as we know,
正如我们所知 柏拉图 tried to argue that we could know,
曾试着证明 that there was--there were good grounds for believing
有理由相信 the soul would continue to exist.
死后灵魂可以继续存在的 I've said I don't find those grounds so convincing.
我说过我找不到那么有说服力的理由 But even if we didn't think we could show
但就算我们找不到证据表明 that the soul would continue to exist,
死后灵魂真得继续存在 at least it could,
但至少它是有可能残存的 it would make perfect sense to think about it
那认为灵魂能够继续存在 continuing to exist.
就完完全全说得通了 And so I could survive the death of my body.
那么我就可以在肉体死后继续存活 In contrast,
反过来说 it looks--Prospects don't look so promising
先别对我肉体死后 for surviving my death of my body
灵魂的继续存在抱有太大希望 if we don't believe in dualism,
如果我们不相信二元论 if we're physicalists.
如果我们是物理主义者 If a person's just a P-functioning body,
如果一个人仅仅是个具有人体功能的肉体 how could it be that after the death of his body
那他肉体死亡之后会怎么样呢 he's still around?
他还存在吗 Well, we'll say more about that a little bit later.
我们等会儿再细说这个问题 Come back to the soul view.
回到刚才说的灵魂论 It's me as long as it's the same soul.
只要灵魂是完全一样的 那就还是我 It's not me if it's a different soul.
如果灵魂不一样 那就不是我 Now consider the following possibility.
现在来考虑下接下来这个假设 Suppose that over the weekend,
假设过了周末 at 3:00 a.M., Saturday night, Sunday morning,
在星期天凌晨三点 while I'm asleep,
当我睡觉的时候 God replaces my soul with a different soul,
上帝给我的肉体 hooks it up to the body,
换了个灵魂 gives that soul, that replacement soul,
还给那个替代的灵魂注入 all of my memories, all of my beliefs,
我所有的记忆 信仰 all of my desires, all of my intentions.
各种欲望 以及意愿 Somebody wakes up Sunday morning and says,
那个人星期天清晨起来说 "Hey, it's a great day. Wonderful to be alive.
"真是个好日子 活着真好 I'm Shelly Kagan. Got to get to work."
我是雪莱·卡根 该去上班了" Whatever it is.
随便说什么 Says "I'm Shelly Kagan";
尽管他说"我是雪莱·卡根" but he's not.
但他并不是 According to the soul view, he's not.
根据灵魂论的观点 他不是我 Because according to the soul theory of personal identity,
因为根据人格同一性的灵魂理论 to be me
要成为我 that person's got to have my soul.
他就必须拥有我的灵魂 And in this story, he doesn't have my soul.
在这个故事中 他并没有我的灵魂 My soul got destroyed, let's suppose,
我的灵魂被破坏了 假设这样 3:00 a.M. Sunday morning.
星期天凌晨3点 A new soul got created.
一个新灵魂诞生了 It's not me.
这不是我 There's a person there, all right.
但的确是有一个人存在的 对吧 It's a person that doesn't have a very long history.
有一个刚刚出现的人 Maybe he'll go on to have a long history.
可能他还会活很久 But it's a different extended through space and time person
但他是另一个贯穿时空的人 than the one you're thinking about right now.
而不是你们现在想的这个人 Because, according to the soul view,
因为根据灵魂论的观点 to be me it's got to have the same soul
要成为我 就必须拥有完全相同的灵魂 and we just stipulated, not the same soul.
而我们刚刚把它规定成不同的灵魂 Think about what that means.
想想看这话是什么意思 If God were to replace my soul
如果上帝要取代我 Saturday night,
星期天晚上的灵魂 I die.
我就死了 And the thing that wakes up Sunday isn't me.
所以星期天醒来的那个人不是我 Of course, he'd think he was me.
当然 他以为他是 He'd think to himself,
他自己这么想 "I'm the very same person
"我就是上周 who was lecturing about philosophy last week."
教哲学的那个人 But he'd be wrong.
可是他错了 It isn't the same person,
那不是同一个人 because it's not the same soul.
因为不是同一个灵魂 He'd be wrong and--notice this--
他错了 请注意 there'd be no way at all he could tell.
他却浑然不知 He could check his beliefs.
他可以核对自己的各种信仰 He can check his desires. He can check his memories.
核对自己的欲望 以及意愿 But that's not the key to personal identity,
但那不是人格同一性的关键 according to the soul view.
根据灵魂论的观点 The key to personal identity, according to the soul view,
人格同一性的关键 is having the very same soul.
在于拥有同一个灵魂 You can't check that.
这点他可没法核实 You can't see the soul to see if it's the same one.
你看不到是否为同一个灵魂 So if this were to happen to him,
所以如果这事发生在他身上 he wouldn't be Shelly Kagan,
他就不是雪莱·卡根 the person who'd been lecturing last week.
他不是上周来上课的那个人 But there'd be no way at all he could know that.
但他却完全无法得知这点 And now
现在 the question you would need to ask yourself is,
你们要问自己这样一个问题 "How do you know
"你怎么知道 this didn't happen to you last night?"
昨晚你没碰上这种事" You woke up this morning thinking,
你今早醒来也会想 I'm the very same person--
我就是原来的 Joe, Linda, Sally, whatever it is--
乔 琳达或者萨里 不管是谁 the very same person who was in class yesterday.
反正就是昨天来上课的同一个人 How do you know?
你怎么知道 How could you possibly know?
你怎么可能知道 If God replaced your soul with a new one,
如果上帝给你换了灵魂 destroyed the old one,
并将旧的毁之 gave the new one all the old memories,
在新灵魂里注入你的旧回忆 beliefs, desires, goals, and so forth,
旧信仰 旧欲望 旧目标等等 that person who was in class last week,
上周来上课的那个人 yesterday, died.
昨天来上课的那人就死了 The person who's here now
在这儿的诸位 hasn't been around 10 years,
都没活过10年 20 years, what have you.
20年 随便多少 You were born a few hours ago.
你几小时前才生出来 And there'd be no way at all
而且你还 that you could possibly tell.
完全没办法知道这一切 How do you know,
你怎么知道 not only that it didn't happen to you last night,
不光是昨晚没发生在你身上 how do you know something like this
你怎么知道 doesn't happen every single night,
不是每晚都发生呢 every hour on the hour,
每个整点 every minute, every second?
每分每秒 God whips out the old soul,
上帝抽走了旧灵魂 destroys it, puts in a new one with--
毁之 取一新灵魂以代之 Maybe souls only last for a minute and a half.
也许灵魂只能维持一分半钟 If that was happening, then people don't last very long.
如果是那样的话 那人们就活不长久 Bodies may last 20 years,
肉体也许能存活20年 50 years, 80 years, 100 years,
50年 80年 100年 but people would only last an hour or,
可是人只能存活一小时 或者 if it's every minute substitution, a minute.
如果每分钟都在换的话 人只能活一分钟 And you'd never possibly be able to tell.
而你还完全觉察不到 Now these worries were raised by John Locke,
约翰·洛克提出了这样的担心 the great British philosopher, and he thought,
约翰·洛克 英国哲学家 经验主义的开创人 this is too big a pill to swallow.
伟大的英国哲人 他认为 This is too big a bullet to bite.
这是难以忍受的屈辱 We can't take seriously the suggestion
这是不能强忍的痛苦 that there's no way at all to tell
我们不能把这种 whether it was still me
"完全无法察觉"的说法太当真 from the one day to the next,
我是否还是我 from one hour to the next,
从这一天到下一天 from one minute to the next.
从这一小时到下一小时 Just not plausible.
从这一分钟到下一分钟 It's not that there's anything
这种事完全不可信嘛 incoherent about this view.
倒不是因为这种观点 It doesn't say anything logically
不合逻辑 contradictory about this view.
这种观点在逻辑上 You just have to ask yourself,
并不矛盾 "Could this really be
你只须扪心自问 what personal identity is all about?
"这真的就是 That there'd be no way at all
人格同一性的含义吗 to tell whether
完全无法得知 I've survived from one minute to the next,
我是否 from one hour to the next?"
从这一分钟活到下一分钟 Locke thought no.
从这一小时活到下一小时吗" You couldn't possibly take this view seriously
洛克认为不对 if you thought about what it meant.
如果你细想它的含义 Notice,
你就不可能把这种观点当真 this is not an argument that souls don't exist.
注意 If you find this argument convincing,
这并不是在证明灵魂不存在 what it's an argument for is the claim
如果你发现这个论证有说服力 that even if souls do exist,
这个论证是要说明 they may not be the key to personal identity.
就算灵魂真的存在 And so what we have to ask ourselves is,
它们也可能并非是人格同一性的关键 what's the alternative?
那我们就要问问自己了 What better suggestion is there for
还有什么别的选择吗 what we could point to as the metaphysical glue,
还有什么更好的 the key to personal identity?
可以拿来作形而上的粘合剂呢 And that's the question that we'll take up next time.
即人格同一性的关键
这就是我们下节课要谈的问题