西方哲学史:原著注释版 本书特色

v 特，然而恰恰是他，写出了中西方学界公认的公正、客观、全面的哲学史，其架构、论述类别、视角都独树一帜。 v 书籍经典：哲学史上**部以讲义为基础、以史家宏观视角编写的哲学著作。影响深远。是学习哲学的人士案头**工具书，与罗素的西哲史并驾齐驱，为哲学界之双璧。 v 译文优秀：本书为北京大学哲学博士贾辰阳和解本远二位专家联袂翻译打造，历时多年，殚精竭虑，译文考究，再三锤炼，摒弃旧式哲学类书晦涩艰深超过原文的通病，通俗，易懂，精准，同类书籍，无出其右。

西方哲学史:原著注释版 内容简介

本书是一部讲述西方哲学发展历程的著作, 其雏形为梯利教授在大学任教时的讲义。全书分为希腊哲学、中世纪哲学、近代哲学三篇, 往下又划分为自然哲学、知识和行为等问题, 是一部规模宏大的哲学史著作。该书于1914年首次出版后, 立即被哲学界奉为名著, 在解放前的中国也有广泛的影响。此次出版, 延请了业内的哲学教授共同翻译打造, 力求语言更加精准、完善。

西方哲学史:原著注释版 目录

西方哲学史:原著注释版 节选

Preface to the Revised Edition THE FIRST edition of the late Professor Thilly’s A History ol Philosophy appeared over thirty-five years ago. Few books in the fields of philosophy or history have maintained undiminished popularity as texts and usefulness as reference works over so long a period. The remarkable vitality of Professor Thilly’s work may be traced to its original conception and execution. Perhaps the outstanding characteristic of Professor Thilly’s approach to the history of philosophy was the objectivity and impartiality of his historical attitude, which escaped the distorting effect of a dogmatic interpretation of historical development. Professor Thilly allowed the philosophers to speak for themselves and, in the conviction that the later systems in the history of philosophy provide the criticism of earlier schools, kept his own criticism to a minimum. Professor Thilly’s own two major philosophical commitments were to idealism and rationalism, but he did not allow his own philosophical biases to obtrude in his account of the historical figures with whom he dealt. Indeed, if anything, he was frequently more successful in the presentation of historical theories with which he was in disagreement than of those with which he was in sympathy. His idealism was not of the dogmatic Hegelian variety, but was closer to the critical idealism of Kant. Professor Thilly considered mind an indubitable fact whose existence was guaranteed by introspective experience. His idealism was, however, not a subjectivism which denied the external world or reduced it to the status of mere appearance, and his rationalism insisted that experience, or nature, has rational structure and coherence which render it intelligible to man’s rational mind. His was not a dogmatic rationalism of the Cartesian variety which posits innate, self-evident truths, but rather a critical rationalism, which considers the basic truths of mathematics and the underlying assumptions of science and philosophy to be indispensable presuppositions of an intelligible world. A second feature of the book which explains its sustained success is the sense of proportion displayed in the presentation of thinkers in their place in philosophical movements. Without adopting an Hegelian dialectic of the history of philosophy, Thilly discerned an inner logic in historical development. Individual thinkers were integrated to movements, and the movements in their turn formed parts of a larger historical pattern. His recognition of the inner logic of the historical process did not, however, prevent his giving due recognition to the social, political, cultural, and personal or temperamental factors which influence individual philosophers. Thilly’s assimilation of philosophers to movements was particularly skillful in his organization of the modern period. Bacon and Hobbes were grouped together as two relatively independent figures who, while not properly part of the British empiricism of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, prepared the way for it. Descartes and Spinoza were considered together as the founders of continental rationalism, and Leibniz, instead of being included, as was customary, as the third in the triumvirate of rationalists, was introduced after British empiricism as a philosopher of the enlightenment. A third feature was the clarity and simplicity of Professor Thilly’s style. In discussing with me the composition of his history Professor Thilly told me that the book grew out of a study of the history of philosophy written with no intention of publication, but solely for the purpose of clarifying his own understanding of the historical philosophers and their relations to one another. This clarification which Thilly achieved for himself pervades the entire exposition. Professor Thilly’s interest in the history of philosophy was not that of the historical antiquarian who seeks merely to record the achievements of the past, nor was it primarily that of the historian of ideas who merely traces the continuous history of ideas and conceptions. It was that of the philosopher who seeks philosophical illumination in the history of his subject. He thought of the history of philosophy as a repository of philosophical ideas from which the philosopher draws his materials and his insights. He rejected the study of the history of philosophy merely for its own sake, but at the same time deplored the pseudo-originality of those who are ignorant of the philosophical achievements of the past. The study of the history of philosophy, he said in his introduction, “serves as a useful preparation to philosophical speculation, passing, as it does, from the simpler to the more complex and difficult constructions of thought... The man who tries to construct a system of philosophy in absolute independence of the work of his predecessors cannot hope to rise very far beyond the crude theories of the beginnings of civilization.” This Professor Thilly conceived to be the value of this historical study for himself, and this is the value he hoped it would have for his readers. I have tried in the present revision to preserve the objective and impartial attitude of the original, and have retained the basic organization except when modification seemed to be indicated by the altered historical perspective. Considerable new material has been introduced, particularly in introductory and transitional sections. In section I the religious sources of Greek philosophy have been traced, in the light of the work of such histories as Cornford’s and Jaeger’s, to indicate more clearly both how Greek philosophy emerged from Greek religion and the essential differences between philosophy and the religion from which it arose. The organization of sections 5 and 6 has been recast so as to emphasize the differences between qualitative and quantitative theories and to give greater prominence to the quantitative atomism of Democritus. In the section on Plato I have prepared new material on the “Hierarchy of the Sciences,”“Cosmology,” and the “Doctrine of Immortality,” and in the section on Aristotle, material on “The Four Causes” and “Aristotle’s Genius and Influence” has been added. Sections 17, 20, and 22 have been entirely rewritten, so as to provide a more adequate transition from the ancient to the medieval period, and also to afford a preliminary survey of scholasticism. The most extensive changes and additions have been made in Part Three, on Modern Philosophy. The sections on the “Philosophy of the Renaissance,” which, in Professor Thilly’s arrangement, were appended to “The Decline of Scholasticism” in Part Two, have been reoriented and transferred to Part Three. In the section on Kant I have added material on “The Transcendental Method,”“Preliminary Analysis of Experience,” and “The Unity of SelfConsciousness,” in order to clarify Kant’s philosophical method and to differentiate it more sharply from the methods of empiricism and rationalism. A comprehensive account of Nietzsche is presented in section 66; it considers Nietzsche in the historical context of German philosophy rather than, as did Professor Thilly’s treatment, in the context of contemporary pragmatism.

西方哲学史:原著注释版 作者简介

弗兰克·梯利（Frank Thilly，1865—1934），美国著名哲学家和哲学史家，曾先后在密苏里州立大学、普林斯顿大学、康乃尔大学教授哲学和心理学，并于1915年至1921年间担任康奈尔大学文学院院长。著作有《西方哲学史》《伦理学导论》等。