休谟问题:归纳推导的逻辑依据是什么——从“康德的休谟问题”谈起

Confront Between Realism and Subjective Epistemology——In an Addition on Kant's Wrong Interpretation of Hume Problem

休谟毫无疑问是一个典型的哲学家。从某种意义上说,休谟的思考可能比贝克莱更加"哲学式地"。这个特征在他的两个论题中得到鲜明而尖锐的注解:一个论题就是康德所理解的休谟问题,即因果问题,另一个论题是归纳的逻辑根据问题。从古典哲学和牛顿物理学的角度看,因果问题更加重要,但是从20世纪之后的哲学和科学的发展来看,归纳问题比因果问题有更高的科学意义和哲学讨论的价值。休谟从经验心理学的角度,主张因果问题的心理主义解释;而康德则在先验知性的建构能力之上,正确地说明了因果原则普遍有效性的理性根据是什么。然而,康德却忽视了归纳问题的重要性,使归纳问题在很长时期内没有受到应有的重视,只有在逻辑哲学和科学哲学发展到相当程度时,归纳问题才能得到妥善解决。

Hume is undisputedly regarded as a foundly been exemplified in his two paradoxes. His typical philosopher, and his role as a philosopher has prostarting point was naive realism, his conclusion was idealism rather than realism or transcendental idealism. In his argument, Hume confused naive realism and subjec- tive epistemology, from then, it caused destruction of his empiricism, and further left room to oppose. Hume fundamental concern was to put up this question as whether or not to conduct human act according to reason. From this starting point, he drew an unreasonable conclusion and was construed as a skeptical philosopher. In this article, we intend to throw some light on his problems and errors, from which we try to make an insight to what Kant taught in his interpretation of Hume.