My teacher Mr. Chen Xiuzhai told me that to learn Western philosophy well, you must master five languages: Greek, Latin, English, French and German.

As far as I know, current Western philosophy researchers (in China) cannot catch up with the foreign language proficiency of the older generation. At Peking University, Mr. Wang Taiqing truly became proficient in Greek, Latin, English, French and German, plus Russian, but we couldn't do it. When learning a foreign language, the younger the better.

When I started this course last year, I designated the English version of "Selected Readings of Classics of Western Philosophy" as the teaching material. A classmate sent me an email to protest.

It’s very strange that this student is from Hong Kong and his English is better than Mandarin. His protest letter was written in English, and the last sentence was “English is ugly language”. I really don’t know why he still speaks and writes English.

"In order to understand Western philosophy more accurately, one must read works in foreign languages." Researchers of Western philosophy must read the original works in the original languages, and researchers in other philosophy majors must also be able to read at least one original work in a foreign language. Or translated.

I’m not saying you can’t read the Chinese version, but I’m saying you can’t just read the Chinese version. The most important thing is to choose a better Chinese translation. There are many problems with current translations.

Even if it is a relatively good Chinese translation, we cannot unconditionally believe it. No matter how good the translation is, there are inaccuracies and even errors. No matter what the situation is, if you see something that is difficult to understand, feel that your thoughts are unusual, or even contradictory, you must check the foreign language works.

In addition, if the material quoted from the Chinese translation is the core evidence for your point of view, you must also check the foreign language works, so that your point of view can be established on a reliable basis. Students majoring in Western philosophy must check the original text.

I will now talk about my own reading experience. You can find the most effective reading method that suits you according to your own situation.

To read and truly understand Western philosophical classics, you not only need a good foreign language foundation, but also require certain philosophical training.

I do not advocate that people without a certain philosophical foundation should read Western classics directly. Some people read Western philosophical classics as popular reading materials. There may be two consequences of doing so:

The first is that one is confused and does not know what is being said, and over time, one loses interest in continuing to study Western philosophy; the second is that one has only a little knowledge and some insights, but these gains are based on misunderstandings, and it will be difficult to correct them in the future.

I advocate that you should follow two points when reading Western philosophical classics:

First, proceed step by step, from easy to difficult, and gradually improve your understanding;

Second, Cross-referential reading, comprehensive understanding. You can't just read one classic, but refer to other people's research results. These results are called "secondary research." Second-hand information is not necessarily of second importance.

In many cases, it is impossible to understand by just reading primary sources without the reference and help of secondary research. Primary and secondary sources should be cross-referenced. Secondary research materials can also be cross-referenced.

Therefore, I summarize the process of gradually improving the level of reading Western philosophical classics into the theory of "four realms": the beginner's realm, the entry-level realm, the critical realm, and the creative realm.

First, the beginner’s level.

When you first learn, don’t rush to read large classics, but lay a solid foundation. It is best to read a few books on the history of philosophy first. Russell's and Thierry's are both very good. The history of Western philosophy written by Chinese has also made great progress recently.

You can read a few more books, learn from each other's strengths, and have a more comprehensive understanding of the basic views of Western philosophers, the inheritance and critical relationships between them, and the development clues of the history of philosophy. These are the foundation. Knowledge requires reading over and over again to become familiar with it.

Of course, you should also read philosophical classics at the beginning stage. Reading the history of Western philosophy without reading the classics of Western philosophy is like reading a recipe without tasting the food. But beginners should not aim too high and should refer to works on the history of philosophy.

Some foreign Western philosophy textbooks are divided into two parts, first explaining the basic points, and then selecting corresponding paragraphs from the classics. The Department of Philosophy at Peking University also has a tradition of doing this.

The American students I studied with placed a one-sided emphasis on reading the original works at the university level, and had only half-understood a few books, such as Plato’s early dialogues, a few books by Descartes, Locke, and Kant, but nothing Systematic knowledge of the history of Western philosophy is very difficult to learn.

Of course their English is much better than mine, but their grades in the history of philosophy courses taught in English are not as good as mine. There were more than 30 students from English-speaking countries in the same class. I was the first to enter the doctoral stage, the first to get the Ph.D., and achieved the highest results (summa cum laude). Looking back on all this now, I feel that these results are due to the correct method of reading.

Second, the entry level.

After getting started, you should turn other people's knowledge into your own knowledge, put forward some of your own unique understandings, and have your own intellectual property rights.

I think this cannot be said easily, it must be well-founded. This basis is found in philosophical classics and mature secondary research materials.

At this time, you can read the entire classic and see in what background and context the philosopher's views appear, what issues are raised, how they are demonstrated, etc.

This stage is still a learning stage. You are still "speaking according to the words" and speaking according to the texts of philosophers.

I emphasize again that this freedom of interpretation of classic texts is not a matter of free will, but what is said after careful consideration after mastering a large amount of material.

In academia as in society, "freedom is not about doing whatever you want, but about doing things that are responsible for your choices."

Third, the critical realm. It's not easy to get in, but it's even harder to get out. Some people have been reading books for a lifetime and still can't get out of it. He is a poor man who knows the contents of the classics very well, but has no ideas of his own.

This is dogmatism towards classics and authority. This kind of dogmatism was evident among ancient Chinese scholars.

The characteristics of Western philosophy also tend to make those who study it prone to dogmatism. Why? "Western philosophy is highly systematic and argumentative, and it takes many years of study to understand and appreciate it."

In the first two stages, you cannot look at philosophers with a critical eye. If you still don’t understand what the philosophers of the past said, you should challenge them. To say it poorly is arrogance and overestimation (Huitian Philosophy Note: The so-called folk philosophy directly enters this realm. , so they can basically say it? Haha?).

The reason why philosophical classics are classics is that they have been tested by history and cannot be easily questioned or refuted.

Some philosophers have thought about how others will refute them, and they have already answered possible accusations. Many researchers have made long-term critical inspections of the classics, raised many questions, and expanded Lively discussion.

"If you don't read much and make criticisms easily at the beginning, then your criticisms may have been answered by classic authors", or other people may have made such criticisms. , but it has been resolved in the debate, or although it has not been resolved, your criticism has been transferred to other issues and is being discussed.

In this way, your criticism lacks professional standards and will not be taken seriously in the academic world. Only on the premise of being familiar with the classics and fully mastering the second-hand information can we make professional and controversial criticisms.

In the critical stage, you must read the classics comprehensively. Read all the important works of a philosopher, from all periods. At this time, it is also necessary to combine the classics of different philosophers and read them together.

Because the question you asked has probably been raised by later philosophers and given classic answers.

For example, many people think that ontological proof is completely bankrupt, but this is not the case. The contemporary Swiss theologian Karl Barth reinterpreted Anselmo's argument. He said:

Anselmo did not want to propose an ontological proof for the existence of God at all, but just wanted to prove it. Reveals how the "fool" who denies the existence of God contradicts himself.

The American Christian philosopher Plantinga used the proof of modal logic to give ontological proof new vitality. If you don't read these books, your criticism of ontological proofs probably doesn't go beyond Goniro's level.

As far as I know, "people without professional training can only criticize ontological proofs based on common sense like Gao Niluo did."

Secondly, pay attention to critical secondary sources. The world of Western philosophy is full of criticism and controversy. The emphasis on a person or a book "is not mainly expressed in praise and affirmation of him, but in criticism of him and discussions surrounding him." This is very different from Chinese academia.

For example, the reason why Rawls is so famous in the United States is mainly because everyone criticizes him, disagrees with him, and raises various issues to discuss with him.

In China, Rawls is famous because many people introduced him and affirmed his contribution. There are three Chinese versions of "A Theory of Justice". Foreign scholars are confused by the comments in Chinese academic circles that are full of affirmations and praise: "Since others have said it so well, is it necessary for you to repeat what he said?"

Some monographs focus on explanation and introduction, which are suitable for the second stage. In the third stage, you should read more monographs that focus on criticism and have aroused heated controversy.

Critical opinions are generally published in journals and proceedings. People who do professional research should read more journals and collections of papers.

Fourth, create a realm.

The creation of modern philosophy is not separated from the study of the history of philosophy. This is particularly obvious in continental philosophy. Modern continental philosophers are all historians of philosophy at the same time.

The more famous a philosophical theory is, the more philosophical history and knowledge it covers. Why did Heidegger have such great achievements?

Because like Hegel, he has a whole set of views on the history of philosophy, from Pre-Socrates to Plato and Aristotle, to Augustine and the Middle Ages, to Descartes and Leibniz. He has done unique research on Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc., and incorporated their views into his own ontology.

Foucault and Derrida also used materials from the history of philosophy to express themselves.

Deleuze, whom Foucault most admired, was more systematic.

Before becoming a recognized philosopher, Deleuze conducted systematic research on Lucretius, Hume, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Kant, Bergson, Bacon and others. As a historian of philosophy famous.

It was on the basis of the irrationalist explanations made by these philosophers that he later developed the unique idea of ??post-structuralism.

The job of a historian of philosophy is to "discuss history based on history". There is nothing wrong with this. Rigorous and detailed textual research, organization and interpretation of historical texts are required at all times.

In fact, a true scholar is not a thinker. If the history of philosophy is studied extensively and profoundly, new philosophy will naturally emerge. In philosophical research, we must now vigorously advocate the combination of history and theory and the emergence of theory from history.