【英语论文】波普尔的语言与实在思想研究A Study on Popper’s Thought of Language and Reality.doc 19页

'本科毕业论文（设计）波普尔的语言与实在思想研究AStudyonPopper’sThoughtofLanguageandReality姓名学号专业年级指导教师职称 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）CONTENTSExordium…………………………………………………………………………（1）1Thesignificationandfunctionoflanguageandreality…………………………（1）1.1Thesignificationandfunctionoflanguage…………………………………（1）1.2Therelationbetweenthethirdworldandlanguage…………………………（2）1.3Someanalysesabout‘reality’and‘autonomy’…………………………（4）1.3.1Between‘reality’and‘autonomy’…………………………………（4）1.3.2Profounderdiscussionabout‘autonomy’and‘reality’……………（4）2Therelationoflanguageandreality………………………………………………（5）2.1Relativerealityandlanguage…………………………………………………（6）2.2Howlogicalcalculusandarithmeticalcalculuscanbeappliedtoreality……（7）2.3Realismandverisimilitude…………………………………………………（9）2.3.1Conjecturalrealism…………………………………………………（9）2.3.2Someanalysesaboutverisimilitude………………………………（10）3SomebifurcationsbetweenPopperandWittgenstein…………………………（10）3.1Howlanguagecanrepresentreality………………………………………（10）3.2Furtherdiscussion…………………………………………………………（11）Conclusion……………………………………………………………………（12）References…………………………………………………………………………（13）Addenda…………………………………………………………………………（14）Appreciation………………………………………………………………………（15）15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）AStudyonPopper’sThoughtofLanguageandRealityAbstractTherearethreemainpartsinmythesis.Firstly,IwillinterpretthemeaningandfunctionoflanguageandrealityinPopper’sphilosophicalthoughtandexplainwhatisthestatusoflanguageinhisdoctrineofthethreeworlds.Secondly,Iwillfocusontherelationoflanguageandrealityandhowlogicalcalculusandarithmeticalcalculuscanbeappliedtoreality.Finally,IwilldiscussPopperandWittgenstein’sdifferentviewsontherelationoflanguageandreality.KeyWords:LanguageRealityThethirdworldPopperWittgenstein15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）波普尔的语言与实在思想研究摘要本文主要有三部分。我首先阐释语言与实在在波普尔哲学思想中的意义与功能，并且解释语言在他的三个世界理论中的地位问题。其次，我将重点讨论语言与实在的关系，以及逻辑演算与算术演算何以适用于实在。最后我将探讨波普尔与维特根斯坦在语言与实在的关系问题上的分歧。【关键词】语言实在第三世界波普尔维特根斯坦15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）ExordiumNumerousscholarshavekeptondiscussingPopper’sfalsificationisminthepastseveraldecades,however,fewofthemcareforhisthoughtoflanguageandreality.Inthispaper,IattempttoexamineandremarkPopper’sthoughtoflanguageandreality.Ofcourse,Ihopetherewillbemorescholarsdiscussthisthemelater.Therearemanydifferentkindsofmeaningoflanguage,asPopperasserts,languagehasfourdifferentkindsoffunction.Ithinkthatclarifyingthemeaningandfunctionoflanguageisjustthefirststepforresearchingtherelationoflanguageandreality.Therearemoresignificantanddifficultproblemsintheroad.Thusitisanabsolutelyhardworktosolveallofthecomplexpuzzles,butIstillwouldliketotrymybesttodemonstratesomething.AndIwilltalkaboutPopper’sconjecturalrealismandhisviewpointoftruth.Asaconjecturalrealist,Popperemphasizesthefalsificationofourknowledge,andhebelievesthattheforegoingtheorieswillalwaysbefalsifiedandreplacedbythelatertheorieswhichhavebeenadvanced.Finally,ItrytomakeclearsomemisapprehensionbetweenPopperandWittgenstein.1TheMeaningandFunctionofLanguageandReality1.1TheMeaningandfunctionoflanguageAccordingtoPopper,languageiscomingtobeingasitisuseful,andalsoawonderfultooltocomparenoteswithourcongeners.Henceweshouldn’tdiscussitsmeaningseparatelybutconnectitwithitsfunction.Popperassertsthatlanguagehasfourdifferentkindsoffunction.Itsfirstfunctionisdenotingorexpressing.Thesecondisstimulatingorsignaling.Describingisitsthirdfunction.Andthelastoneisarguing.Thesefourtypesoffunctionaresetindifferentranksfromlowstatustohighstatus.Poppermaintainsthateveryhigh-classfunctionoflanguagecannotexistwithoutallofthelow-classfunctions,butthelow-classfunctionsoflanguagecanexistsolelywithoutanyhigherfunction.It’sPopperwhosays‘Themostimportantofhumancreations,withthemostimportantfeed-backeffectsuponourselvesandespeciallyuponourbrains,arethehigherfunctionsofhumanlanguage;moreespecially,thedescriptivefunctionandthearguingfunction.’[1]Ithinkthatclarifyingthefunctionoflanguageisjustthefirststepifwantingtoresearchtherelationoflanguageandrealitycompletely.Bothhumanbeing’slanguageandanimal’slanguagehavetwolowerfunctions——selfexpressingandsignaling,whichareclearlyexpoundedbyPopperinhisObjectiveKnowledge——anevolutionaryresearch.Heassertstheselfexpressingorbehavingfunctionisvisible:Thoughwedon’tholdthateverykindofselfexpressingislinguistic,allofthelife-formstrytocommunicatewiththeircongenersinsomespecialwayandatthistimelanguageisprobabletobecreated.However,Ifwejustfocusontheselfexpressingandsignalingfunction,wecan’ttellanyobviousdistinctionbetweenhumanbeing’slanguageandanimal’slanguage.Thereby,itisnecessarytoanalysethetwoleftfunctionsoflanguage.It’sPopperwhofindsaregrettingfact:Theinimitablefunctionsoflanguagethatarethehigherfunctionsoflanguagearealmostalwaysignoredbyallofotherphilosophers.Heindicatesthereasonofthisphenomenon‘isthatthetwolowerfunctionsarealwayspresentwhenthehigheronesarepresent,sothatitisalwayspossibleto‘explain’everylinguisticphenomenon,intermsof15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）thelowerfunctions,asan‘expression’ora‘communication’’.[2]Asisdemonstrated,thetwomoreimportantfunctionsoflanguagearedescribingandarguing.OnlywhenwelearnthetwofunctionsprofoundlyandusethemtoexplaintheuniversecanwereallycomprehendPopper’sviewpointoftruthandinwhichsensescienceisascensive.Itisnothardtoknow,thepurposeofPopperinterpretingthesetwofunctionsoflanguageisillustratinghisthoughtofrealism,inthisindispensableprocess,wehavegotalotoforiginalstandpointsfromPopper.It’smeaningfultogoonponderinghowthefunctionsoflanguageevolve.Popperholdsthatit’sofcoursethefunctionsoflanguagealwayskeeponevolving.Andcritiqueisthemostimportantimpetus.Ononehand,thehigherfunctionsoflanguageexistinanindependentworldandthisworldwillchangeintoaworldofscienceatlast;onetheotherhand,theformulawhichisprimarilyappliedtoanimalworldandprimitiveman:P1TTEEP2Theabove-mentionedformulainwhich‘P1’denotesproblems,‘TT’denoteattemptingmethods,‘EE’denoteeliminatingerrors,‘P2’denotesnewproblemscanhelpustocriticizerationallyandeliminateerrorssuccessfully.Thisformulathatdescribeshowwerelyonourpowerofcriticalthoughtsandmakemoreprogresswillbeveryusefultoprobeintotruthsbydintofrationaldiscussion.Furthermore,italsopromptsustoexceedourselvesandacceleratetheevolutionofourknowledge.Althoughthemeaningof‘knowledge’isnotimportant,Popperasserts,itissignificanttodistinguishthedifferentmeaningsofthisword.Onthewhole,peoplehavetwodisparateperspectivesabout‘knowledge’:(1)、Thesubjectiveknowledgewhichisconstitutedbysomeconnaturalproceedingintentsandtheirchangeaftercomingintobeing.(2)、Theobjectiveknowledgewhichisconstitutedbyconjecturalprinciple、unresolvedproblems、thestatesofissueandtalkingpoints,suchasscienceknowledge.Poppermaintains‘Allworkinscienceisworkdirectedtowardthegrowthofobjectiveknowledge.Weareworkerswhoareaddingtothegrowthofobjectiveknowledgeasmasonsworkonacathedral.’[3]Accordingly,IthinkitisnotexaggeratedtosaythattheuniquepurposeofPopper’sphilosophyistryingtocreateamorereasonabletheorytopromotethedevelopmentofobjectiveknowledge.Thereby,Poppersays‘Ourworkisfallible,likeallhumanwork.Weconstantlymakemistakes,andthereareobjectivestandardsofwhichwemayfallshort-standardsoftruth,ofcontent,ofvalidity,andotherstandards.’[4]Criticismisthemostimportantelementinhisphilosophicalthought,itisobviousthatherejectsanyperfectprinciplesbecausenoneofthemexistreallyandweshouldbereadytomakemistakeswhenwetryexplainingtheworld.Frustrationsarequitenormal.Popperpointsout,languageandtheillustrationofproblems,theappearanceofnewstatesofissueandcompetingprinciplesareallnecessaryinstrumentsforthedevelopingofscience.Themostsignificantfunctionsofhumanbeing’slanguage(whichcannotbemasteredbyanimals)arestilldescribingfunctionandarguingfunction.Ofcourse,thedevelopingoftheforegoingtwofunctionsisduetoourselves’endeavor,thoughtheirevolutionmightbetheunexpectedresultofouractivities.1.2TherelationbetweenthethirdworldandlanguageInPopper’slateyears,hecreatedanepistemologywithnocognizingsubject.Thoughthisepistemologydoesnotargueagainsttheindependenceofobjectiveknowledge,itrejectsany15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）subjectiveknowledgeorthoughts(suchasknowledgeinreligion、consciousnessindreamingandsoon),thenitwillbeinevitabletorefertodividingourworldintoseveraldifferenttypes.Andinterestingly,Poppersaysthatourworldcouldbedividedintothreediverseparts:Firstly,itisaworldofphysicalobjectsorphysicalstates;Secondly,thereisaworldofconsciousstatesorspiritstates;Lastly,itistheworldofideaisticobjectiveviscera,especiallytheworldofthoughtsofscienceandpoemsandartworks.Popperonceclaimedhewasarealistpublicly.Hethinksthatepistemologyisaprincipleconcerningwithscienceknowledgeandheisalmostanaiverealistwhoassertsthereisaphysicalworldandaconsciousworldwhichcaninfluenceeachother.Healsobelievesthereisathirdworldandexplainshowitaffectstheothertwoworldsdetailedly.Animportantmemberin‘thethirdworld’isthesystemoftheories.Problemsandthestatesofissuesarealsosignificant.Themostimportantmembersinthethirdworldarecriticalargumentsthatarecalleddiscussingstatesorcriticalarguingstates,whicharesimilartophysicalstatesandconsciousstates.Moreover,Poppermaintainsthatmagazines、booksandlibrariesarealsocontainedbythethirdworld.Heacknowledges:‘ThusIdoadmitthatinordertobelongtothethirdworldofobjectiveknowledge,abookshould—inprinciple,orvirtually—becapableofbeinggrasped(ordeciphered,orunderstood,or‘known’)bysomebody.ButIdonotadmitmore.’[5]PopperalsoadmitsthattherearemanysimilarviewpointsbetweenhisthirdworldandPlato’sidealprinciple.Thus,thethirdworldisalsosimilarwithHegel’sobjectivespirit.However,PopperassertsthattheobjectiveformorideawhichwasfirstillustratedbyPlatoandwasusuallymisconceivedassubjectiveconceptionorthinkingprocesscanbemergedastheobjectofthethirdworldatonetime.InPopper’smind,thesecondworldisjustusedasatooloraresonancebetweenthefirstworldandthethirdworld,what’smore,humanbeing’sspiritcouldnotonly‘see’or‘grasp’arithmeticalorgeometricalobject.Hereby,spiritisabletoconnectwiththeobjectsbothinthefirstworldandthethirdworld.Theworldconcerningwithpersonalsubjectiveexperiencedoesexistandoneofthemainfunctionsofthesecondworldisgraspingtheobjectsinthethirdworld.Heassertsthat‘thisissomethingwealldo:itisanessentialpartofbeinghumantolearntograspobjectivethoughtcontents(asFregecalledthem)’[6],infact,thisfunctionoflanguagewasfirstdemonstratedbyphilosophersofStoa,Popperpointsout,theyrealizedthathumanbeing’slanguagebelongstoallofthethreeworlds,‘insofarasitconsistsofphysicalactionsorphysicalsymbols,itbelongstothefirstworld.Insofarasitexpressesasubjectiveorapsychologicalstateorinsofarasgraspingorunderstandinglanguageinvolvesachangeinoursubjectivestate,itbelongstothesecondworld.Andinsofaraslanguagecontainsinformation,insofarasitsaysorstatesordescribesanythingorconveysanymeaningorclashwithanother,itbelongstothethirdworld.Theories,orpropositions,orstatementsarethemostimportantworldthird-worldlinguisticentities.’[7]Afterhavingillustratedtherelationofthethirdworldandlanguage,I’dliketochangemyattentionupontheautonomyofthethirdworld.BecausePopperhaspointedoutadesperatefact:‘thereisakindofPlatonic(orBolzanoesque)thirdworldofbooksinthemselves,problemsinthemselves,problemsituationsinthemselves,argumentsinthemselves,andsoon.AndIassertthateventhoughthisthirdworldisahumanproduct,therearemanytheoriesinthemselvesandargumentsinthemselvesandproblemsituationsinthemselveswhichhaveneverbeenproducedorunderstoodandmayneverbeproducedorunderstoodbymen’.[8]Iusedtobeconfusedbytheforegoingsentences,becauseifsomebooksarecomprehendedbynobodyandevennoneofus15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）knowwhethertheyexistornot,howcanwegetanyinformationfromthismonster?Aretheyjustconstitutedbysomepiecesofpapersmearedbydifferentcolorsofink?Howtopersuademetobelieveit’snotaparadoxornonsensebuttruth?Poppergiveshisresolvingmethods:itisjustlikethatwhenahoneycombisabandoneditisstillahoneycombandabird"snestisstillabird"snesteventhoughnonebirdlivesinit.Similarly,abookisstillabook,eventhoughnobodyhasreaditbefore.Anothermeaningfulpurportofthisviewpointisthatmostofthecontentwhichconcernswithpracticaltheoriesandpotentialtheories、booksandargumentsincludedinthethirdworldisthebyproductofthebookshadbeenpublishedandtheargumentshadbeenbroughtforward.Otherwise,Popperholdsastrikingstandpoint,heindicatesthatlanguageitselfisanunlooked-forbyproductwhenweareoriginallyengagedinanotheractivity;furthermore,theappearanceoflanguageandotherusefulequipmentshouldattributetotheirsubservienceandinfact,theythemselveshavenoplanorcontemplation.Tosumup,Poppereducesthattheworldoflanguageandtheworldofspeculation、principleandargument,inshort,theworldofobjectiveknowledgeisthemostsignificantworldcreatedbyourhumanbeing,anditisanautonomousworldatthesametime.1.3Someanalyseson‘reality’and‘autonomy’1.3.1Between‘reality’and‘autonomy’Whenillustratingthecharacteristicsofthethirdworld,Popperindicates,‘theideaofautonomyiscentraltomytheoryofthethirdworld:althoughthethirdworldisahumanproduct,ahumancreation,itcreatesinitsturn,asdootheranimalproducts,itsowndomainofautonomy’[9],‘Ithinkthatitispossibletoupholdapositionwhichdiffersfromthatofboththesegroupsofphilosophers:Isuggestthatitispossibletoaccepttherealityor(asitmaybecalled)theautonomyofthethirdworld,andatthesametimetoadmitthatthethirdworldoriginatesasaproductofhumanactivity.Onecanevenadmitthatthethirdworldisman-madeand,inaveryclearsense,superhumanatthesametime.Ittranscendsitsmakers.’[10]Itisnothardtoknowthatbecausethoughthethirdworldisman-made,itscontentisvirtualandnottherealobjectsofthought.Moreover,justfewofthenumerousvirtualobjectscouldchangeintorealobjectsofthought.Asisindicatedbythisviewpoint,thethirdworldcantranscendhumanbeing.Asitissaidintheforegoingtwoparagraphsofquotation,itisobviousthatPoppermaintainstheword‘real’andtheword‘autonomous’hassimilarmeaning.Bothofthemaretheimportantcharacteristicsofthethirdworld.‘Accepttherealityofthethirdworld’canalsobereplacedbyorcomprehendedas‘accepttheautonomyofthethirdworld’anyway.Ithinkitisnotwrongtoreplace‘real’with‘autonomous’atthistime.However,theword‘reality’and‘autonomy’aredistinctlydifferentfromeachother.1.3.2Profounderdiscussionabout‘autonomy’and‘reality’Popperthinksthat‘autonomy’isjustanunstrikingcharacteristicofthethirdworld.Thereasonisthatnewproblemswillresultinnewcreations,thuswecanusethenewobjectstorecruitthethirdworld,what’smore,everysteplikethiswillcreateunexpectednewfactsandunexpectednewproblemsandoftencreatenewrefutations.Whentryingtoresolvetheseproblems,wecouldcreatenewtheorieswhichareabsolutelycreatedbyus:theyaretheproductsofourcriticalandinnovativethought,andwhenponderingwecouldbenefitfromthecreatedprinciplesofthethirdworld.Butwhencreatingthesetheories,theywillbringonnew、unconsciousandunexpected15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）problems,someautonomousproblemsandundiscoveredproblems.Judgingfromtheforegoingdiscourse,wecouldclearlyunderstandwhyoriginalcreatorsofthethirdworldareourhumanbeingsanditsontologicalstatusisautonomous,nay,weknowwhywecouldreacttothethirdworld,renewitorhelpittogrowup.AndPopperhasaseeminglypessimisticconclusion‘thereisnomanwhocanmasterevenasmallcornerofthisworld.Allofuscontributetoitsgrowth,butalmostallourindividualcontributionsarevanishinglysmall.Allofustrytograspit,andnoneofuscouldlivewithoutbeingincontactwithit,forallofusmakeuseofspeech,withoutwhichwewouldhardlybehuman.Yetthethirdworldhasgrownfarbeyondthegraspnotonlyofanyman,butevenofallmen(asshownbytheexistenceofinsolubleproblems).Itsactionuponushasbecomemoreimportantforourgrowth,andevenforitsowngrowth,thanourcreativeactionuponit.Foralmostallitsgrowthisduetoafeed-backeffect:tothechallengeofthediscoveryofautonomousproblems,manyofwhichmayneverbemastered.Andtherewillalwaysbethechallengingtaskofdiscoveringnewproblems,foraninfinityofproblemswillalwaysremainundiscovered.Inspiteandalsobecauseoftheautonomyofthethirdworld,therewillalwaysbescopefororiginalandcreativework’.[11]Whentalkingabout‘reality’,Popperoftenassertsthat‘commonsense’or‘wisecommonsense’ishelpfulforassistingustodistinguishbetweensuperficialphenomenonandreality.Phenomenaareostensibleandestheticandtherearenotonlytruephenomenabutalsopseudophenomena.Unfortunately,weareusuallycheatedbypseudophenomena,forinstance,whenweseethechopsticksarebrokeninthewater,butinfact,itisjustforthesakeoftherefractionofthelight;orsomeoneseeminglydoessomethingeasily,however,hetellsmeinprivatethathecanhardlybeartheintensityofthework.Becausetherearemanycausesliketheforegoingexamples,inordertoknowallthedetailsclearly,wehavetothinkwiththehelpof“wisecommonsense”andinotherwordscognizingrealityexplicitly.Butweprobablycannothelptoask:Arethephenomenaandrealitycompletelydisparatefromeachother?Poppersays:‘No’!Healsomaintainstwodisparatekindsofreality,oneissuperficialrealityandtheotherisprofoundreality.Andtheformercouldbeentitledphenomenon,videlicet,phenomenoncouldbeakindofsuperficialreality,phenomenoncouldcontainthiskindofreality,suchasareflectioninthemirror.Diverserealthingsarethefoundationofrealfeelingsandtheserealthingscomprisedifferentkindsofmutinousobjects(here,‘objects’meansomethingreliesonouractivities),suchasstones、trees、humanbodiesandsoon.Inaddition,Poppermaintainsthereisakindofprofoundreality,‘buttherearemanysortsofrealitywhicharequitedifferent’,hesays,‘suchasoursubjectivedecodingofourexperiencesoffoodstuffs,stones,andtreesandhumanbodies.Examplesofothersortsinthismany-sorteduniverseare:atoothache,aword,language,ahighwaycode,anovel,agovernmentaldecision;avalidorinvalidproof;perhapsforces,fieldsofforces,propensities,structures;andregularities.’[12]Consequently,IthinkPopper’s‘reality’indicatesthesynthesesofidiographicthingsandabstractthingsandhisphilosophyofrealismabsolutelybasesontheabstractthings.ItisobviousthatPopperdeemslanguageisakindofprofoundreality,namely,languageisreality(thereisnoprobleminlogic,justlikewecansaySocratesisoneofhumanbeingsandheishumanbeingatthesametimeindubitably).However,Wittgensteinassertsthat‘theexistenceandnon-existenceofstatesofaffairsisreality’[13].Iwilldiscusstheirbifurcationinthefinalpartofmythesisdetailedly.15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）2TheRelationofLanguageandReality2.1RelativerealityandlanguageIhavediscussedthefourdifferentfunctionsoflanguageparticularlyinthefirstchapterofmythesis.Butifwethinklanguageisreality,hastheproblembetweenlanguageandrealitybeensolvedwhenwejustsimplyconsiderlanguageasanatomicpropositionofreality?Infact,itismoreandmorecomplicatedthananatomicproposition.Regardinglanguageasreality,namely,languageisanobjectofthoughtusedtograsprealityandanindividualasathinkingtoolinthethirdworld.Thus,itisinevitablethatwewillfacetheproblemofthefunctionoflanguagewhenappliedtoreality.ItisPopperwhoassertsthathumanbeing’slanguageisdescribingandarguingessentially,because‘anunambiguousdescriptionisalwaysrealistic:itisofsomething—ofsomestatesofaffairswhichmayberealorimaginary…….Rationality,language,description,argument,areallaboutsomereality,andtheyaddressthemselvestoanaudience.Allthispresupposesrealism.’[14]Ihavedissertatedtheadjectives‘real’and‘autonomous’aresimilartoeachotherwhenPopperusedthembefore.Otherwise,Popperalsotalksabout‘reality’frequently,asanoun,Imaintain‘reality’means‘statesofaffairsofreality’,asPoppersays,‘iffastatementwhichdescribesastateofaffairsistrue,wecallthisstateofaffairs‘real’’[15].Furthermore,theuncertaintyofprinciples、thepostulatingorconjecturalcharacteristicofprincipleswillweakenthestatesofaffairsofrealitydescribedbythemselves,thereasonisthateverystatement‘P’isequivalenttoaclaim‘Pistrue’,Popperindicates,evenifsomeconjectural、uncertainprincipleissuccessfullyfalsifiedbyanexaminationofmanyfacts,itstillcannotinfluencethestatesofaffairsofreality.Theotherwayround,wewillclearlyseethatthereisatrueprinciplewhichisresistantwiththefalsifiedprinciple,atthemoment,wealsocallthetrueprinciplethestatesofaffairsofreality.IinsistthatPopper’spatientattitudetowardsfalsificationismeaningfultoallofthephilosophers,especiallysomearbitraryscholars.Thison-limitsandcriticalattitudeisthemostpreciousandabsorbingpeculiarityofPopper’sphilosophy.Doctrineabouthypostaticandculminatingrealityisnotworthytobelieve.WeonlyneedthescientificprincipleswhichmustbeabletobefalsifiedinlogicandIthinktherestareeithermetaphysicsormeaninglesstautology.ThereforePopperassertsthatonlyifaprinciplecouldbetestedorrefuted,itgivessomeconclusionsaboutreality,atthesametimeitmeanssomethingwon’ttakeplace.Alloftheprinciplescreatedbyusthatareappliedtotheuniverseandalloftheobjectiveknowledgecomeintobeinginsomecourselikethis.Inordertodemonstratehowtoacquireobjectiveknowledge,Popperrejectstheviewpointofknowledgeoftheso-calledessentialismandinstrumentalism,inotherwords,heopposesboththedoctrineaboutculminatingrealityandthetheoryjustconsideringprincipleasinstrumentandinsistingthataprincipleistrueonlybecauseofitsapplicability.WemightaswellconsidertheviewpointofknowledgePopperagreeonasanevolutionaryviewpointofknowledge.Hehaseverindicatedthatknowledgeistheresultofanevolutionaryaccumulationafterbeingfalsified.Ifthereisnodoctrineaboutculminatingreality,indeed,thisdoctrineistooarbitraryandtoomadcap,andfoolish,IthinktheprincipleindicatedbyPoppercouldberegardedasatheoryaboutakindofrelativereality.Butwemaydoubtifthe‘relativereality’isjusttheoffspringofcompromise.‘Ofcoursenot!’Poppersays,hethinkshisprinciplecouldjustifyitself.Inordertoexplainwhy,Popperbringsintheabstractwordsandintentativewordswhichhavedescribingfunction.Inhis15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）mind,alloftheuniversalnamesareintentativeandthedegreeoftheirintentsranksfromlowtohigh,forinstance,theintentativedegreeof‘itiselectric’ishigherthantheintentativedegreeof‘nowitiselectric’,nay,thedegreeisrelevanttotheprinciplewhenitisconjecturalorassumptive.Whilethedegreeoftheintentishigher,aprincipleconcludesmoreaboutreality,consequently,ifaprincipleismoreassumptiveandthedegreeofitsintentishigher,itstestabilitywillbehigher.Universalnamesaresoimportantthatonelanguagecannotworkwithoutthem.Longtimeago,Popperasserted‘Everydescriptionusesuniversalnames(orsymbols,orideas);everystatementhasthecharacterofatheory,ofahypothesis.Thestatement,‘Hereisaglassofwater’cannotbeverifiedbyanyobservationalexperience.Thereasonisthattheuniversalswhichappearinitcannotbecorrelatedwithanyspecificsense-experience.(An‘immediateexperience’isonlyonce‘immediatelygiven’;itisunique.)Bytheword‘glass’,forexample,wedenotephysicalbodieswhichexhibitacertainlaw-likebehavior,andthesameholdsfortheword‘water’.’[16]Theuseofuniversalnamesalwaysdemandsustoclaimsomethingandsequentiallyguessthesubstantialityofintents(heredenotingrelativesubstantialitybutculminatingorunconditionalsubstantiality),thus,ifwejustresearchintentativewordsandconcreteitemsseparately,itwillresultinsomefalsehood,thereasonis‘alloftheitemsaretheoreticalinaway,thoughsomeitemsaremoretheoretical;justlikewehavesaid,alloftheprinciplesareconjectural,thoughsomeprinciplesaremoreconjecturalthanotherprinciples.’[17]ThebasisofPopper’sargumentationisalwaysthefalsificationofprinciples,thoughifwetrytocreateanewprinciple,itwillsufferfromthedangerofbeingfalsified,inordertogetprecisertheories,weshouldstilldaretouseuniversalnamestoseekafterallthemysteriesintheworld.Otherwise,languagewillbepurportless.2.2HowlogicalcalculusandarithmeticalcalculuscanbeappliedtorealityGenerally,allofthelogicalcalculusesaredirectedbythereasoningrules.Popperproteststhattoeveryproverbialreasoningrules,thereisanassertive(couldbeproved)well-knownformula.Thusitcanbeseenthatweregardlogicalcalculusasaprocess,whenweareintheprocessofusinglogicalcalculus,wewillinevitablyobeyreasoningrulesandmakeuseoftheformulasoflogicalcalculusesinordertoletthelogicalcalculusesbeappliedtoreality.Poppermaintainsthatarithmeticalcalculusisaparticularkindoflogicalcalculuses,anditsdifferencefromotherkindsoflogicalcalculusesisthatitcouldbeusedtodescribesometypesoffactsdirectly.Ifwewanttocomprehendwhattheexactmeaningofreasoningrulesiswhenusedasaninstructionoflogicalcalculuses,wemustknowthatlanguagedenotesakindofformalsymbolicsystemwhichallowsustomaketruestatements.Arightreasoningrulewillnotmeetcounterexampleinthiskindofsymbolicsystem,becausenoneofcounterexampleexistsatall.Popperthinksthatwejustneedtheformalcharacterofreasoningrules.Atthesametime,weshouldrealizethatreasoningrulesalwaysconcernwiththestatementsofstatementsorconcernwiththestatementsofthegenericstatements,therebytheyaremealanguages,andalsoconcludesomethingaboutallofthegenericstatementsunconditionally;neverthelesscalculusformuladoesnotconcludeanythingunconditionally,butconcludeakindofallofitsnexusandindividualsconditionally.ThusPopperindicatesthat:‘weshoulddistinguishsuchasthetraditionallogicalreasoningrules(called‘Bar-bara’):‘MaP’‘SaM’‘SaP’15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）fromthegenericcalculus:‘ifMaPandSaM,thenSaP’;moreover,distinguishthereasoningruleorpositivehypotheticalreasoningcalled‘thereasoningfundamentalofpropositionallogic’:pifp,thenqqfromtheformulaofpropositionalcalculus.’[18]Althoughtoeverywell-knownreasoningrule,thereisawell-knowncalculusformulaaccordingly,weshouldrespectPopper’swarningandedification,andnotconfusemealanguagewithobjectivelanguageorelsewemaymakemistakesandbringupagainstparadox.Ithink‘thereasoningrule’referredbyPopperhereisalsodenoting‘logicalrule’andtheactualmeaningof‘logicalcalculuses’isregardedasaprocessofhowtoconstitutepracticallogicalcalculusesinordertousecalculusformulaandconsequentlyletlogicalcalculusesbeappliedtoreality.Herein,Imaintainthatweshouldmakeanefforttograspthemethodofconstitutingpracticallogicalcalculusesandmakesurethatthereasoningrulescanbeappliedtoreality.ProfessorRylehasindicatedthatlogical(orreasoning)rulesareproceduralrules,andgoodorusefulproceduralrules,Popperagreeswithhimatthemoment;withalprofessorRyleindicatedthatlogicalrulesareappliedtosomeproceduresbutnotanyfacts,andif‘reality’denotesthefactswhicharedescribedbyscientistsandhistorians,logicalrulesarenotappliedtoreality,herethequestion‘whetherlogicalrulesareappliedtoreality’isequivalenttothequestion‘whetherlogicalrulesareappliedtofacts’,however,becauseofpredictingthat‘whetherlogicalrulesareappliedtofacts’isimpossible,hence,thequestion‘whylogicalrulescouldbeappliedtoreality?’shouldberegardedasafakeproblemandeliminated.TheforegoingsurlyviewpointiswhatPoppercannotagreewith,heindicateshisownresolvingmethod:‘thequestion‘whylogicalrulesareappliedtoreality?’couldberegardedas‘whylogicalrulesaregood、usefulorhelpfulproceduralrules?’’[19]Andthelattercanbechangedas‘iftheprerequisiteistrue,logicalrulewillalwaysresultintrueconclusion,howtointerpretthisfact?’Popperanswers:‘wecanstipulatethataccordingtothedefinition,alogicianreasoningrule,iffourprerequisiteistrue,andobeyingthisrulewillhelpustoeducetrueconclusion,itisgoodor‘right’reasoningrule.Ifwesuccessfullyfind,abidingbyaruleletuseducefalseconclusionfromatrueprerequisite—Icallit‘counterexample’—webelieve,thisruleisfalse’[20].WhereuponPoppertriumphantlyresolvesProfessorRyle’sso-calledfakeproblem,namely,wheneverwestartfromanappropriatedescriptionofthefact,andabidebysomerightrule,therewillalwaysbeadescriptionwhichisappliedtothefact,orthatmatter,thereasoningruleisappliedtothefact.Atthesametime,Popperalsoadvocatestocreateaspecialmethodoflogicalcalculus,inotherwords,condensingthousandsofrulesintoone(ortwo)rulesystematically.Alloftheotherruleswillbereplacedbycalculusformula,inordertodeducenumerousformulasfromfewformulassystematically,ofcourse,wewillnotsucceedwithoutthehelpofreasoningrules.Then,howcanlogicalcalculusesbeappliedtoreality?TherearethreestatementsinPopper’sanswer:(1)Theselogicalcalculusesareusuallysemanticsystems,namely,theyarethelanguagesusedtodescribesomefacts.Ifthepracticalsituationprovestheyareindubitablyusedto,itisnoneedforustobesurprised.(2)Thismaynotbetheirintention,wecouldunderstanditfromthefollowingfacts:somecalculuses—suchasthecalculusesofnaturalorrealnumbers—arehelpfulfordescribingsome15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）kindsoffacts,butareuselessforotherkindsoffacts.(3)Asacalculuscouldbeappliedtoreality,itwillloseitscharacteroflogicalcalculus,andchangeintoakindofdescribingprinciple,thisprinciplecouldberefutedempirically;however,whenitisregardedasasystemofformulawhichcannotberefuted,namely,itistrueinlogicbutnotakindofdescribingscientificprinciple,itisnotappliedtoreality.’[21]Itisnotdifficulttounderstandthatitisabackslidewhenlogicalcalculusesareappliedtoreality,theychangefromlogicalcalculusesintocalculusformulas,theirpropertyhasaltered,becausecalculusformulascanberefutedempiricallyandmightbefalse.Onthecontrary,logicalcalculusesaretruesystemsofformulasinlogicandwillneverbefalse.Theyarethesamewithtruesymbolicsystemsandcannotbeappliedtorealitydirectly.Thereisaninterestingfactthatarithmeticalcalculusesaresimilarwithcalculusformulas,theycanbeappliedtoreality,butjustappliedtosometypesoffacts.Forinstance,wecouldusenaturalnumberstoreckontheamountofbilliardsoralligators,whereaswecannotsaythere3.6orπalligators.2.3Realismandverisimilitude2.3.1ConjecturalrealismPopperhaseverclaimedthatheisafollowerofrealism.Inhisopinion,realismisthenubbinofcommonsense,realismcannotberefutedbutcanbediscussed.TherealismthatPopperapprobates,infact,isnotthesamewith‘scientificrealism’,butauniquerationalhypothesis——‘asanassumption,nobodyindicatesothermorerationalone’.Asrealismcanbediscussed,ItrytogeneralizePopper’sargumentswiththefollowingfivestatements:(1)Realismisapartofcommonsense,theargumentsopposingitalsobaseonsomecommonsensewehavereceiveduncritically.(2)Almostallofthephysical、chemicalorbiologicaltheoriescontainrealism(3)Ourhumanbeing’slanguageisessentiallydescribing,anunambiguousdescriptionisalwaysrealisticandallofargumentsopposingrealismmustbedescribedbysomekindoflanguages.(4)Mentalismispreposterous,denyingrealismismadcap(5)Ifrealismistrue,whereasoursubjectiveknowledgeisjustakindoftentativeapplicationtorealism,itishardtoavoidmistakes;atthesametime,ifthereisnorealitybutonlypinkelephants,itisvaluelessthatourprinciplesareeithertrueorfalse.Judgingfromtheforegoingfivepoints,weknowPoppermaintainsthereareenoughexcusesaboutwhyrealismcannotberefuted,thiskindofstrongrealismismoreorlesscloseto‘scientificrealism’.A.F.Chalmershasindicatedthat‘theallegationofthescientificrealismisthatthepurposeofscienceisprovidinguswithtruepropositionsabouttheexistenceandactivitiesintheworldinallextentsbutnotjustintheobservationalextent.’[22]AccordingtothefifthargumentgivenbyPopperwecoulddeducethatheassertsallofthesubjective-knowledge-likeprinciplesareaimingtomakeantentativeapplicationtoreality,whichareconjecturalbutnotculminatingprinciples,sofarasthatisconcerned,realismistrue.HerebyA.F.ChalmersproposesthatwecouldregardPopper’sthoughtofrealismas‘conjecturalrealism’,hepointsout,‘conjecturalrealistsemphasizethatthefalsificationofourknowledge,andrealizesufficientlytheforepassedprinciplesandtheirallegationsabouttheexistenceoftheentitiesintheworldhavebeenfalsifiedandreplacedbytheadvancedprincipleswhichexplainourworldinsomeextremelydifferent15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）ways.’[23]WhereastherearestilllotsofproblemswhichcouldbefoundoutfromPopper’sconjecturalrealism.A.F.Chalmersallegesoneofthemostimportantproblemsofhisthoughtofrealismisthatitspropositionistooweakandfaint:‘itdoesnotassertsthatpeoplecouldrealizethecurrentprinciplesaretrueorapproximatelytrue.Itjustclaimsthattheobjectiveofscienceistocomprehendthesethings,whensciencecannotreachthisobjective,therearesomemethodshelpingustorecognizethis.Whattheconjecturalrealistshavetoadmitis,inscience,eventhoughwehaveacquiredthetrueprinciplesandtruestatementsabouttheworld,wearestillunabletoknowit.’[24]Imaintainthatevenifconjecturalrealismwastrappedbyaprettypass,itisstillmorebrilliantthananti-realismbecauseanti-realistallegesthatprinciplesarenomorethanreckoninginstruments.Ithinkitisashamelessviewpointsinceeveryscientificprinciplewillpredictsomefactsandshouldbesuccessfulorrefutedintheprocessofpredicting.2.3.2SomeanalysesonverisimilitudePopper’sviewpointoftruthisasupplementtohisconjecturalrealism.Headvocatesaviewpointoftruthwhichkeepsonpursuingverisimilitudeandrejectsanyculminatingviewpointoftruthanddoesnotmaintainthatthemainpurposeofscienceisprovingtruth.Theviewpointoftruthkeepingonpursuingverisimilitudemeansbyforceofcreatingprincipleswhichareclosertotruththantheprinciplesourpredecessorspossess,ourprinciplesmustbemorelifelikeandclosertotruthbutnotchangingintoculminatingtruthsandlayingdownthelaw.Popperthinksthataprincipleistrueiffitisconsonantwithreality,andtheverisimilitudeoftruthliesonthatrealityisinfinite,neverthelessourprinciplescanonlyruntorealityandrepresentitlimitedly,thenmakeakindoftentativeapplication.ThusPopperpointsout:‘Fortheverisimilitudeofastatementwillbeexplainedasincreasingwithitstruthcontentanddecreasingwithitsfalsitycontent.nthisIshalllargelyutilizeideasofAlfredTarski,especiallyhistheoryoftruth,andhistheoryofconsequenceclassesanddeductivesystems.’[25]Thereupon,probingintoverisimilitudemeanscomparingthecontentofcompetitiveprincipleswitheachotherdirectly,andPopperassertsthat‘Thesearesomeoftheadvantages,existingevenbeforeithasbeentested,ofa(logically)strongertheory;thatis,ofatheorywithgreatercontent.Theymakeitapotentiallybettertheory,morechallengingtheory.Butthestrongertheory,thetheorywiththegreatercontent,willalsobetheonewiththegreaterverisimilitudeunlessitsfalsitycontentisalsogreater.’[26]Thereby,itisnotsomuchthepurposeofscienceispursuingtruthasallegingitsaimisreachingtheverisimilitudeoftruth.3SomeBifurcationsBetweenPopperandWittgenstein3.1HowlanguagecanrepresentrealityWittgensteinhaseverassertedpublicly‘Propositionscanrepresentthewholeofreality,buttheycannotrepresentwhattheymusthaveincommonwithrealityinordertobeabletorepresentit—logicalform’[27]Hethinksthatlanguageisthetotalityofpropositions,andpropositionisanimageofreality.Consequently,wecandeduceaconclusionthatlanguagecouldrepresentallofthereality,anditisthetotalityoftheimagesofreality.Inasmuchlanguageisacarrierusedtorepresentreality,realityistheonebeingrepresented,15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）wedonotneedtoargueaboutthispoint,however,theforemostproblemiswhatthefinalextentaboutlanguagerepresentingrealityisandwhetherlanguageisthetotalityoftheimagesofreality.IthinkthebifurcationbetweenPopperandWittgensteincouldbeattributedtothedifferentresolvingmethodstowardtheproblem.IhaveillustratedPopper’sconjecturalrealismdetailedlyinthesecondpartofmythesis,hisprincipledemonstratesthatanunambiguoushumanbeing’slanguagetriesdescribingrealitytentatively,butrealityisinfiniteandatthesametimetheoriescreatedbythedescriptionoflanguagearejusttentative、finite、conjectural,thereby,languagecannotrepresentthewholeofrealityandnaturallyWittgenstein’sviewpoint‘propositionscanrepresentthewholeofreality’iswrong.Whereas,somedayWittgensteinmightsay:‘therealitywhatIindicateistheexistenceandnon-existenceofstatesofaffairs;theexistenceofstatesofaffairsisalsocalled‘aplusfact’,andthenon-existenceofstatesofaffairsisalsocalled‘aminusfact’;propositionscouldrepresentbothplusfactsandminusfacts,inthissensewecouldmaintainthatpropositionscanrepresentthewholeofreality.’Sofar,IthinkthatthefocusofthecontroversybetweenPopperandWittgensteinisnotwhatthefinalextentaboutlanguagerepresentingrealityisorwhetherlanguageisthetotalityoftheimagesofreality,butthedefinitionofreality,almosteveryphilosopherhastheirownpersonaldefinitionsofreality.Popper’sopinionisthattheinfinityofrealitymeanstherearenumerousunknownfactsandyetthescientifictheoriesandthefunctionsofsymbolicsystemsarelimited、tentative、conjectural,wehavenotyetrepresentedtherealitybeyondthescientifictheoriesandthesymbolicsystems.ButWittgensteinsuggeststhatrealityshouldberegardedastheexistenceandnon-existenceofstatesofaffairs,‘whatcanbesaidatallcanbesaidclearly,andwhatwecannottalkaboutwemustpassoverinsilence’[27].Wittgensteinallegesrealitymustbeansweredwith‘yes’or‘no’bypropositions,thusrealitymustberepresentedbypropositionscompletely.3.2FurtherdiscussionIfindamoredifficultproblembetweenPopperandWittgensteinwhichishardertoillustrateclearly.ThisproblemcomesfromWittgenstein’sfollowingnarrative:‘4.021Apropositionisapictureofreality:forifIunderstandaproposition,Iknowthesituationthatitrepresents.AndIunderstandthepropositionwithouthavinghaditssenseexplainedtome.4.022Apropositionshowsitssense.’[28]Because‘thetotalityofpropositionsislanguage’[29],wecandeduceaconclusionthatlanguageisthetotalityofalloftheimagesofrealityandnaturallylanguageisabletorepresentallkindsofreality.Whereas,Popperdoesnotagreewiththisviewpoint:‘Factsaresomethingbroughtonbybothsomelanguageandreality;theyarestrictlyconfirmedbydescriptivestatements.……Insomesense,thesefactsobviouslyexistbeforetheindispensablenewmethodsusedtodescribethemwerefoundout;thereasonwhyIsay‘obviously’isduetoakindofcomputation,forinstance,thecomputationaimingatthemovementoftheMercurytodaywiththehelpofrelativisticcalculuswillabsolutelybeatruedescriptionabouttherelevantfacts,eventhoughwhenthesefactsappeared,relativismwasnotcreated.’[30]Thisparagraphistodemonstratethatmanyfactshavenotbeendescribedbylanguage,andsometimeslanguageisincapableandpowerless,propositionisnotanimageofreality,unlesswecreatenewconvictiveprinciples,utilizenewsubtlekindsof15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）languages,andconstitutenewtentativepropositions.Infact,Wittgensteinalsorealizesthispoint:‘Manpossessestheabilitytoconstructlanguagescapableofexpressingeverysense,withouthavinganyideahoweachwordhasmeaningorwhatitsmeaningis—justaspeoplespeakwithoutknowinghowtheindividualsoundsareproduced.’[31]ItishardtosayeitherPopper’sviewpointorWittgenstein’sviewpointisperfect.Maybeitismeaninglesstojudgewhoiswiserthantheother.Wejustneedtowarnourselvestobecautiouswhenmakingdeterminationsandlearnwhatwereallylackfromtheformertwobrilliantphilosophers.ConclusionTherearelotsofotherbifurcationsabouttherelationoflanguageandrealitybetweenPopperandWittgenstein,butIcannotparticularizeeternally.Ifindthattheiressentialbifurcationistheirultimateattitudetowardsphilosophy,whileWittgensteinregardsphilosophyasakindofactivityandallegestherearenophilosophicalquestionsbutonlylanguagequestions,Poppermaintainsalthoughheadmitsthestatementsoffactsshouldbestudiedbyempiricalscienceandlogicalstatementsshouldbestudiedbypureformallogicorpuremathematics,factualorlogicormixedquestionswillstillbephilosophicalquestionsundersomespecialconditions.Asthecasestands,IfindthataconjunctorsimilarviewpointbetweenPopperandWittgensteinismoreattractive:Popperalleges‘Mythesisisthatrealismisneitherdemonstrablenorrefutable’[32],whileWittgensteinindicatesjudgingapropositionismeaningfulornotisasinsignificantasdenyingthereisaformalcharacterinit,‘Toaskwhetheraformalconceptexistsisnonsensical.Fornopropositioncanbetheanswertosuchaquestion.’[33]ImaintainWittgenstein’s‘formalconcept’herehastheconjunctorsimilarmeaningwithPopper’s‘realism’.Bothofthemcannotbeprovedexistingbutcouldonlyshowthemselves.Perhapsthemostdifficultknowledgetobeacquiredwhenengagedinscientificorphilosophicalactivitiesisnothowtodemonstraterulesbuthowtolearntokeepsilencewhileitisreallynecessary.15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）References[1]KarlRPopper,ObjectiveKnowledge[M],4thedition,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1979,119[2]Ibid.120[3]Ibid.121[4]Ibid.121[5]Ibid.116[6]Ibid.156[7]Ibid.157[8]Ibid.116[9]Ibid.118[10]Ibid.159[11]Ibid.161[12]Ibid.37[13]LudwigWittgenstein,TractatusLogico-philosophicus[M],London:Routledge&Kegan,1961,8.[14]KarlRPopper,ObjectiveKnowledge[M],Thefourthrevisededition,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1979,41[15]KarlRPopper,《猜想与反驳》[M]上海：上海译文出版社，2005，165。[16]KarlRPopper,TheLogicofScienceDiscovery[M].TheHarperTorchbookedition,NewYork:Harper&Row,1968,94~95[17]KarlRPopper,《猜想与反驳》[M]上海：上海译文出版社，2005，169[18]同上，292~293[19]同上，296[20]同上，298[21]同上，304[22]A.F.Chalmers,《科学究竟是什么？》[M],北京：商务印书馆，2007，277。[23]同上，280[24]同上，280~281[25]KarlRPopper,ObjectiveKnowledge[M],4thedition,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1979,48[26]Ibid.53[27]LudwigWittgenstein,TractatusLogico-philosophicus[M],London:Routledge&Kegan,1961,3.[28]Ibid.21[29]Ibid.19[30]KarlRPopper,《猜想与反驳》[M]上海：上海译文出版社，2005，309。[31]LudwigWittgenstein,TractatusLogico-philosophicus[M],London:Routledge&Kegan,1961,19.[32]KarlRPopper,ObjectiveKnowledge[M],4thedition,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1979,38.15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）[33]LudwigWittgenstein,TractatusLogico-philosophicus[M],London:Routledge&Kegan,1961,130.Addenda:1Informallogic,thefollowingformula:MaPSaMSaPistrue.2thefollowingformula:pifp,thenqqisalsorightinformallogic.15 湖北大学本科毕业论文（设计）AppreciationThankstothehelpofmytutorSongWei,IcanreadsomanyPopper’sandWittgenstein’soriginalversionswritteninEnglish.AnditismyrespectabletutorSongWeiwhofirstsuggestedmetowritemythesisinEnglish.Finishingthisthesisisnoteasytome,butIholdonandachievemypurposeatlast.ItisreallyahardworkandIwanttothankmybrotherXiangPengwhoborrowedmethebook‘ObjectiveKnowledge’fromWuhanUniversity.Onallaccounts,Ihaveaccomplishedmyaimmoreorlessandhopetodobetterinthefuture.15'