维特根斯坦的“蒙昧主义之谜”  

Wittgenstein's“Puzzle of Obscurantism”

作　　者：陈常燊 贺丽霞 Chen Changshen;He Lixia

机构地区：[1]山西大学哲学学院 [2]山东大学人文社会科学青岛研究院

出　　处：《中国社会科学院大学学报》2025年第2期105-118,154,155,F0003,共17页Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重点项目“分析的西方哲学史研究”(19AZX013);国家社会科学基金后期资助一般项目“维特根斯坦与寂静主义研究”(21FZXB042)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：维特根斯坦能否在某种意义上被视为一个蒙昧主义者,此乃“蒙昧主义之谜”的核心问题。这一问题围绕《评弗雷泽的〈金枝〉》中的哲学人类学展开,对深入理解维特根斯坦中后期思想而言不可或缺。弗兰克·乔菲区分了限制蒙昧主义和方法蒙昧主义,并指出维特根斯坦的哲学人类学有限制蒙昧主义的嫌疑。彼得·哈克批评了乔菲的限制蒙昧主义指控,二者展开了一系列“批评—回应—再批评”。通过梳理攻辩双方的论证脉络,本文重新回到维特根斯坦的原始文本,并提出下述正面替代方案:在当代语境下,与其追随乔菲把维特根斯坦看作一个蒙昧主义者,不如将其视为一个寂静主义者;对巫术或仪式的研究在实质上仍然是对人类行为方式的考察,《哲学研究》中的“综观式表现”对此同样适用,它要求深刻反思人类学的科学主义进路;哲学人类学的首要目标仍然是避免误解而非寻求解释,旨在获得理智上的安宁。Whether Wittgenstein can be regarded as an obscurantist in some sense is the central question of the“puzzle of obscurantism”.It is centered around the philosophical anthropology inRemarks on Frezer's Golden Bough,and is indispensable for a deeper understanding of Wittgenstein's mid-and late-period thought.Frank Cioffi distinguishes between limits obscurantism and method obscurantism,and points out that Wittgenstein's philosophical anthropology is suspected of limits obscurantism.Peter Hacker criticizes Cioffi's charge of limits obscurantism,and the two engage in a series of“critique-response-critique”.Based on an interpretation of Wittgenstein's texts and a review of the two sides,this paper clarifies that,in the contemporary context,rather than following Cioffi in seeing Wittgenstein as an obscurantist,it is better to view him as a quietist.In essence,the study of witchcraft or rituals is still an investigation of human behavior,and the“surveyable representation”inPhilosophical Investigationsalso applies here,calling for deep reflection on the scientistic approach to anthropology.The primary goal of philosophical anthropology is to avoid misunderstanding,rather than to seek explanation,with the aim of achieving intellectual peace.

关 键 词：巫术仪式 哲学人类学 蒙昧主义 综观式表现 寂静主义 

分 类 号：B505[哲学宗教—外国哲学]