再论“逻辑在先”

Rethinking on Logical Priority

人们往往把"时间在先"与"逻辑在先"区分开来,并把逻辑在先理解成逻辑中的先后关系。这样就犯了一个明显的错误——逻辑并无先后关系,同时又导致了一个无法解决的难题:自然不遵守逻辑。亚里士多德第一个将在先关系区分为四种或五种在先关系,与逻辑在先最为接近的是逻各斯在先,即原理在先或定义在先。时间在先与逻辑在先的提法,过分简化了问题。事实上,今天学者笔下的逻辑在先,可能指的是除时间在先之外的任何一种在先。在哲学基本问题上,学者们所谓的逻辑在先实为本体论在先,本体论在先跟时间在先并不相悖。因此,一些学者基于这两者相悖,而在这方面做出时间在先与逻辑在先的区分是没有意义的。

It is generally believed that logical priority, a priority in logical sense, is distinguishable from temporal priority. Believers adopted such a view would make a mistake because there is no priority in any sense of the word logic, and will find it difficult to explain why the Nature does not keep pace with the logics. Aristotle, the first person to specify the meaning of priority, divided it into four or five types, among which we found no logical priority but priority with respect to logos, that is, priority in principle or defini- tion. Today so-called logical priority in many scholars＂ writings contains all types of priority except the tem- poral one, which simplified the issue improperly, and led to contradictions since priority in one sense does not mean priority in another. In particular, the so-called logical priority in connection with the relation of Thought and Being just means ontological priority, which is consistent with temporal one. Thus, it is unnecessary for some scholars to make a difference between logical and temporal priorities when they are dealing with the fundamental question of philosophy.