我能够将理查·罗蒂的《哲学与自然之镜》读完,其兴趣决不在于对哲学的兴趣。按照我的理解,它是反“哲学”的。哲学的历史似乎就是“怀疑—解释”的历史。以“怀疑”发端,以“解释”发展(?)。解释愈演愈精密,怀疑也就越来越深刻,竟至怀疑到“哲学”本身——按罗蒂的说法就是,“大多数当代西方哲学家共同的一点就是对是否存在有一种称作‘哲学’的自然人类活动的怀疑。”罗蒂对哲学的愤激就在于那些真心诚意研究哲学的哲学家们总是在 I am able to read Richard Rorty’s Mirror of Nature and Philosophy, whose interest, by no means, lies in the interest of philosophy. According to my understanding, it is anti-philosophical. The history of philosophy seems to be the history of “doubt-interpretation.” Start with “suspicion” to “explain” development (?). As the interpretation grew more sophisticated and the suspicions deepened, it was doubtful that “philosophy” itself - according to Rorty - was that “what most contemporary Western philosophers share is the existence of a philosophy called ’philosophy Doubts about natural human activity. ”Rorty’s anger at philosophy lies in the fact that philosophers who study philosophy in good faith are always