写在发表之前的话

本刊编辑部决定刊登该文的出发点,是该文可引起读者的兴趣:他们可以通过第一手材料了解布哈林的哲学观点,他对历史唯物主义的解释及其著作的风格。在布哈林多种多样的科学活动和文学活动中,对历史唯物主义问题的研究占有相当重要的位置。只需说出一点就够了:写成于1921年、以后多次再版的,深受欢迎的历史唯物主义教科书即出自布哈林的手笔。详尽地研究布哈林在历史唯物主义领域做了什么工作,他在这一领域中著作的短长优劣,那是以后的事。但有一点是显而易见的——他从不固步自封,     

关于《哲学导论》一书的写作意图

目前大批苏联著名学者正在集体撰写一部新的哲学教科书。我们认为,把这些作者撰写教科书的指导思想、书的结构、前言和结束语向广大哲学界作一介绍是适宜的。我们也和该写作集体一样,希望听到读者的反应。该书即将由《政治书籍出版社》出版。(《哲学导论》一书现正由贾译林、李树柏主持翻译,即将由中国社会科学出版杜出版。)     

我们在真正的理解时,可以称什么为哲学

康德在《纯粹理性批判》和《逻辑》中将哲学的学术概念同哲学的世界概念区分开。但是,这两个概念都以相同的方式隶属于哲学:世界概念表示那种必定引起所有人兴趣的事物;而学术概念仅仅对学哲学的学生们的狭小圈子才具有意义。按照学术概念,哲学最终应该是“哲学认识的体系,或者是由概念组成的理性认识的体系”;相反,按照世界概念,哲学则是关于人类理性之最终目的的科学,并由此获得它的“地位”和“绝对价值”。学术概念的哲学旨在建立一个“理性认识的丰富库存”,并使这些认识“在一个总体的观念下”形成体系的关联。这种哲学最终成为得到证明的形而上学。     

胡塞尔的现象学与科学实在论

胡塞尔对“伽利略科学”的议论(载于其《欧洲科学的危机和先验现象学》一书1970年英文翻译版)常以其幼稚的工具主义态度和对科学抱有的敌意而遭到摈弃。由于他对科学理想化的误解,由于他将生活世界当作一种专用的概念构架,以及由于他否认科学在原则上能够完全描述世界(因为普通的前科学概念是不可替换的),他受到了公开的批评。本文中我要阐明胡塞尔关于实在论的主张,并运用这种主张说明前两种批评是立足于曲解。第三种批评应予采纳,不过,这种批评与胡塞尔的基本主张是一致的,即议论事物的现象是重要的,但是经验科学却难以彻底了解这些现象。     

共产主义实验在苏联

1.斯大林个人扭曲了的共产主义意识形态“斯大林主义”,是苏联官方理论家从不使用的一个术语。而且,它一般也并没有被人们广泛地当作马克思-列宁主义来运用。有时候,斯大林主义被误解为是马列主义的一种扩大或发展。实际上,斯大林主义倒可以看作是从马列主义中派生出来并且背离了马列主义的,它(直到1953年斯大林去世时     

系统剪影:作为哲学的一般系统

我对介绍一般系统论有为难和讨厌之感。显然,在我看来,一般系统论者所关注的中心问题即“系统的本质是什么?”基本上是一个哲学问题。然而,我所接触的一般系统论者不仅没提及哲学,而且似乎把哲学看作废弃的和缺乏时代性的东西(哲学的某些问题很久以前就被逻辑实证主义者取消     

笛卡儿的二元论在分析和身心问题上的矛盾

“笛卡儿的二元论”在西方哲学看来很象一个稻草人,因为就“笛卡儿二元论”这一命名的观点来看,事实上,这一贬意称呼与其所由来的历史情况无关。当然,不少人会论辩说,笛卡儿是一位提出心灵和躯体的本质及它们相互之间作用的独特理论的作者,然而,这一理论却经常被丑化为“笛卡儿的二元论”而遭到批评。真实的情况是:笛卡儿坚     

克劳德·莱维—斯特劳斯:走向艺术的结构

一种无法遏止的对比,已被D.莱温(Levine)用漫画手法清晰地表现出来了。一边是受过极高教育的法国学者克劳德·莱维-斯特劳斯,他对古典哲学传统有渊博的知识,并且对世界范围内不同文化的人类学造诣极深;另一边是卢梭所说的高尚的原始人的形象,直接取自自然的状态,即处在自由自在的形式中的人性。这两位也许正在一间富丽堂皇的沙龙中,呷着各自的马丁尼酒,进行着一场深刻的讨论。这幅漫画表明了菜维-斯特劳斯对我们时代的社会科学变革所做的主要贡献,他认为,     

A quantitative analysis of chain-schedule performance

Six pigeons were trained with a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule on the left key and with reinforcers available on the right key on a single variable-interval schedule arranged concurrently with both links of the chain. All three schedules were separately and systematically varied over a wide range of mean intervals. During these manipulations, the obtained reinforcer rates on constant arranged schedules also frequently changed systematically. Increasing reinforcer rates in Link 2 of the chain increased response rates in both links and decreased response rates in the variable-interval schedule concurrently available with Link 2. Increasing Link-1 reinforcer rates increased Link-1 response rates and decreased Link-2 response rates. Increasing reinforcer rates on the right-key schedule decreased response rates in Link 1 of the chain but did not affect the rate in Link 2. The results extend and amplify previous analyses of chain-schedule performance and help define the effects that a quantitative model must describe. However, the complexity of the results, and the fact that constant arranged reinforcer schedules did not necessarily lead to constant obtained reinforcer rates, precluded a quantitative analysis.     

Effects of relative reinforcer frequency on complex color detection

Pigeons were trained under a discrete-trials detection procedure in which one of a set of color stimuli was presented on the center key and a single response turned off the stimulus and illuminated two side keys. Single responses to one or the other side key produced occasional reinforcers depending on the value of the color stimulus. In Experiment 1, one color-stimulus set comprised 559, 564, 569, and 574 nm, and right-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. The other stimulus set comprised 579, 584, 589, and 594 nm, and left-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. Across seven experimental conditions, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .9. In Experiment 2, one stimulus set contained only one member, 574 nm, and right-key responses were occasionally reinforced following its presentation. Over 12 experimental conditions, two manipulations were carried out. First, the number of stimuli comprising the other stimulus set was increased from one (579 nm) to two (579 and 584 nm) to three (579, 584, and 589 nm) and to four (579, 584, 589, and 594 nm), and left-key responses were reinforced occasionally following center-key presentations of members of this set. Second, for each stimulus combination, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .5 to .9 across three experimental conditions. The principal finding of Experiments 1 and 2 was that reinforcers and stimuli interacted in their effects on behavior. In Experiment 3, pairs of adjacent stimuli (5 nm apart) in the range 559 to 594 nm were presented in each experimental condition, and the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was held constant at .5. The data from all three experiments were analyzed according to a detection model describing performance in multiple-stimulus two-response procedures. This model provided independent measures of stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and bias. The analysis showed that (a) consistent with the color-naming function, pigeons were better able to discriminate between higher nanometer values than lower nanometer values; (b) their ability to discriminate between the stimuli was independent of the number of wavelengths comprising each stimulus set; (c) they allocated delivered reinforcers very accurately to the previously emitted response; and (d) no consistent biases emerged.