不可知論與無神論理性之擇

引言
自有人類文明以來，宗教也是如影隨形的。當有宗教的時候，「神是否存在？」的問題便伴隨而來。在這個問題上，有三個立場：認為神存在的有神論(Theism)，認為神不存在的無神論(Atheism)，以及認為神存在和不存在皆非吾人有限的認知能力中可解的問題的不可知論(Agnosticism)。

在《穹蒼下的女神》這電影中，見到在羅馬帝國的亞歷山大城中，希臘傳統宗教與基督宗教之爭、基督教（當時並未分裂成羅馬天主教及東正教，甚至新教）與猶太教之爭，所引發的衝突、生靈塗炭實非吾人所欲見的。現代英國經驗主義哲學家休謨(David Hume)曾有一言：「哲學如果犯錯，大不了會造成愚昧；但宗教如一旦犯錯，卻往往會釀成極大的災害。」 正正就是這個意思。看畢這電影後，觸發我反思信念的倫理(ethics of belief)的問題。究竟我們在有限之中，如何在信仰中自處呢？而本文將欲論述在恪守人類的有限性下，認知上應該採納不可知論者的立場，而非無神論。

如是者，本文將分為五部份：一、信念的倫理；二、理性的限制；三、無神論的僭越；四、不可知論的安份；五、結語。

信念的倫理
在進入本文核心比較無神論與不可知論之前，我們需要做一些預備工作，作為下文討論的依據。我選擇了以William Kingston Clifford的 “The Ethics of Belief” 作為起點，先了解建立一個信念應合乎甚麼倫理。Clifford寫這篇文章是針對廣義的信念(belief)，若將此廣義的信念收窄至宗教層面去看，便可指為信仰(faith)。在“The Ethics of Belief” 一文中，Clifford提出了三項倫理，我欲採納首二項：一為「質問的義務」(The Duty of Inquiry)；二為「權威的份量」(The Weight of Authority)。 而這兩項倫理均有一共通點，便是與理性的運用相干。

先說「質問的義務」。由於信念有三項重要的功能，分別會影響我們當下的行為、為我們將來的計劃作指引、與及會繼承給我們的後代。由於信念對我們現在、將來及後代均有影響，我們必需保證所有信念的有效性。而保證的方法則是通過對一切我們所相信的信念進行質問，質問信念的證據(evidence)及其基礎是否有力，或曰穩妥。

其實這質問的要求並非只有Clifford一人提出，早於二千多年前，古希臘哲學家蘇格拉底在確立一個信念前必先對它進行辯證。蘇氏聞名的其中一個故事便是當雅典的女神給了「他是全城邦最聰明的人」這神諭後，他並沒有立時相信神諭，並且感恩；反而是走到市集找一此他原以為是聰明的人進行辯證，對這神諭進行質問。通過連番的質問後，蘇格拉底才接受神諭所言，「他是全城邦最聰明的人」。

那有人會問到，假若這樣無止境的質問，豈不是與懷疑論者無疑？非也，因為通過質問，我們的目標並非否定一切，而是藉著質問，找出可經得起考驗的信念才相信。就如上文蘇格拉底的例子，蘇格拉底經過連番質問後，也確立了神諭上的話。同時，這例子亦顯示了權威（例如：雅典女神）於我們的份量並不高。權威於我們而言，並非他所說的便要相信，而是要運用我們的理性對其進行質問後，有充份由理性所得的證據才相信之。對於那些未能通過理性質問取得充份證據的信念，我們只能從理性的層面予以否定，同時不能建立其相反的信念。若要建立這相反的信念，便必需同樣正面質問之，正面取得證據。

有關運用理性及權威的討論，康德的《對這個問題的一個回答：甚麼是啟蒙》中有一明確的討論可供參考。「啟蒙」於康德而言，是人類超脫於他自己招致的未成熟狀態。所謂未成熟狀態，即是要經別人（或權威）的引導來運用理智，而沒有自己運用自己理智的勇氣和決心。而每個人都「敢於知道(Samper aude)！」 因此，以康德的話語，只有啟蒙了的人才可能建立信念；亦即信念的倫理為啟蒙。

由於在建立信念時，需要運用理性對信念進行質問，所以基於信念的倫理，我們並沒有理由要相信或接受那些超越我們人類理性範圍所能質問的信念。正因為理性在建立信念中有重要的位置，我們必需清楚了解我們理性能對甚麼問題進行質問，與及其邊界及限制，哪些問題是不能問的。

理性的限制
有關理性的限制，我們可參考康德的《純粹理性批判》中，對我們人類認知能力的考查。康德統攝了歐陸理性主義及英國經驗主義，認為人類所能認知的，必由兩種東西所組合而成，分別為由感觀(sensibility)所賦予的內容，及由知性(understanding)所賦予的形式框架，缺一不可。在人們認知及形成知識的過程中，他們主動地將範疇(categories)這形式框架應用於直觀(intuition)。因此，凡是我們所能認知的，必然是經我們知性運用範疇整理了的經驗。而直觀及範疇即為知識形成的必要條件(necessary condition)，但非充份條件(sufficient condition)。由於數學與科學所處理的，都是在直觀及範疇之內，亦即在理性之內，是可被證成的學科。

不過，康德對於形而上學所處理的問題，與數學及科學區分了。由於形上學試圖處理物自身的相關問題，並非處理世界的現象及經驗事物。而理性所運用的範疇卻只適合於處理現象。由於物自身的形式超於我們知性的範疇的限制，所以人類的理性去把握物自身並不恰當，而強行以有限的理性去理解形而上學牽涉的物自身問題，不旦會做成扭曲，更會引申出予盾。

因此，人類的理性只能論證經驗事物所賦予的對象，旦凡脫離了經驗事物的，均會因著不能以知性下的範疇應用於直觀上，理性將不能作用於此等對象，因而變得認知上不可能，無法成為知識。了解到人類理性認知的限制後，承接前文，由於信念的建立必先通過理性的質問，而理性只能處理現象及經驗事物，不能處理如自由意志、靈魂、世界、神等超越現象及經驗事物，有關於物自身的問題。因此，人們只能對有關前者的信念進行質問，而不能質問後者；換句話說，只有有關前者所建立理性下的信念是合乎信念的倫理，而有關後者所建立的信念，則是不合乎信念的倫理。

無神論的僭越
所謂無神論，顯而易見是認為人類理性能處理「神是否存在？」這問題，並且對這個問題予以否定。由於本課集中討論自然主義式的無神論，所以這部分我亦集中討論自然主義式的無神論對理性能力的僭越。自然主義本來只是認為所有可靠知識皆可以科學方法來探討、考證。因此，最初的自然主義者對「神是否存在？」這問題也本是採納不可知論的立場。 而下文所言及的自然主者是推至極端後的自然主義者，認為有足夠的科學證據證明神並不存在。這部分對自然主義式無神論的進路同是以課上言及的三方面：生物的多樣性、宇宙的生成及對宗教經驗進行討論。
有關於現時生物的多樣性，基督教的有神論認為生物是由神所創造的。而自然主義式無神論的進路是，是通過生物學及考古學，以科學方法嘗試論證生物的多樣性是物種的演化而成。而這至現在，因著基因研究的進步，先進儀器的發明，科學家們已通過不同的實驗所得的結果，慢慢譜出生命之樹，以確立演化論的有效性。

我認為這個進路並不足以推倒基督教的有神論。無疑演化論的確和某些基要派有神論的教義有所予盾，例如Young Earth Creationalism。那麼基於信念的倫理，我們的確應該推翻這些與有充份證據支持的科學理予盾的信念。不過，演化論面對一些其他基督教的有祌論教義，例如羅馬天主教所採納Theistic Evolution，演化論不見得便有充份証據支持無神論。根據康德對理性的析述，演化論只能為我們提供生物由單細胞如何形成今天的多樣性，因為這些都是有現象及可經驗事物作對應，範疇亦可作用於直觀上，從以形成知識。不過，若要在演化論為有關於生物的起源建立一個信念，且否定一個信念──「生物是由神所創造的」，便是對理性的僭越。根據現時科學知識得出的理論，我們只能擁有單細胞生物之後的演化過程，但仍未有足夠証據支持單細胞之先非由神所創造，所以目前為此，我們也不應該將「神並不存在」的信念以理性建立，而應抱著不可知的立場則更為恰當。
另外，從現時生物中，我們會發現許多不乎合效率、不夠簡單的生物結構，例如人類視覺的盲點，某神經線的迂迴。然後，自然主義式的無神論者便因著這些不完美，試圖否證完美的神的存在。《穹蒼下的女神》這電影中，主角希帕提婭在一生中一直苦思為何她觀察的天體運動，與天文理論中天體運行的軌跡乃完美的圓形不乎。好不容易，她才擺脫前人一直所追求的完美，重新大膽假設天體運行的軌跡非完美的圓形，而是橢圓形。我認為自然主義的無神論者與前人也有著同樣的假設────完美。其實這世界是否完美，同樣亦非經驗事物，範疇不能應用於此，所以欲在此之上建立神不存在，便是無視人類理性的有限，違反了建立信念的倫理，嘗試在無證據的情況下建立一信念。

至於宇宙的起源，與生物一樣，基督教有神論都是認為宇宙是由神所創造。有神論者以第一因論證，加上現時科學未能證明宇宙的起源，所以推論出宇宙的的第一因是神，宇宙是神所創造的。而無神論者首先指出這個第一因論證訴諸無知的謬誤，這點無神論仍恪守著理性的限制。不過，無神論再試以宇宙物理學對有神論作出質疑。而這便是無神論再一次對理性的限制作出了僭越。根據當代著名物理學家霍金，他提出宇宙是有限的，但是卻沒有時間與空間的邊界，亦即在時間上沒有真的的起源。由此，無神論提出宇宙的形成根本不存在起源，所以無需要引入神的存在，以促使宇宙的形成。再以康德對理性的介定，那麼根本不能提出宇宙沒有起點的信念。由於我們的理性所能建立的信念及知性，必需是能在時空所呈現的現象，否則將不能以知性的範疇將之把握。若根據霍金的理論，無神論者便是欲建立不落入時間直觀的信念。既然是超越我們理性所能處理的信念，亦即表示我們不能對此信念進行質問，繼而得到充份的證據相信它。因此，相信這信念實為對理性僭越的表現。

除此以外，有神論者亦試圖以宇宙各項物理常數對生命育成的適合性，意圖以其無可能在隨意的情況下形成，從而以目的論論證神的存在。無神論者對此同以機率的方式否證由神所創造宇宙並不一定比宇宙自然生成高。不過，若由此便確立無神論的信念，便是違反了信念的倫理。縱然在機率上宇宙是有機會自然生成，但其機率有多大，則是無法運算的，更莫說是否比神創造宇宙的機率高。在這不確定的情況下，並不能為無神論的信念提供證據，強要相信將會違反相念的倫理。

其實，康德亦在《純粹理性批判》的第一個二律背反中指出對宇宙本身是如何的宇宙論(Cosmology)問題提出了批判。縱然宇宙是可以給予我們經驗，但要了解宇宙本身為何，則需要擁有整個宇宙的可能經驗的總合(totality)，才能得出整個宇宙為何的信念。對於這有可能的信念，康德通過二律背反進行檢驗。結果，兩個矛盾的世界觀在純粹理性下不分高下，有著同等的有效性，擇其一也會在理性的考查中出現另一面的矛盾，所以接納任一也出現問題。由此，康德以此否定宇宙論概念的客觀存在。 因此，在恪守理性下，人們在宇宙論的概念問題，應採納一不可知論的立場，既不對其一予以肯定，亦對另一予以否定。

到此課的最後，討論的是宗教經驗的問題。所謂宗教經驗即個體發生某種經驗感覺，如同與神接觸或進行交流。根據William James所列的宗教經驗大部分也是一種內感的呈現，如有超然的感覺、心情有持續往正面的轉向等。對於這點，自然主義式的無神論者會以大腦的運動解釋。甚至有科學家利用電子儀器刺激大腦的不同部份，從而製造出如宗教經驗的感覺。藉此認為根本宗教活動只是大腦的某一狀態，可以以人的能力達至該狀態，所以根本不是甚麼特別的經驗，更非由神所使之然的經驗，由此達成其無神論的信念。不過，無神論的這番推論只能合法地建立「通過大腦局部的刺激，可產生類似宗教活動的經驗」此信念，而不能走多一步，因而否定「宗教經驗確是由神所給予的」這一有神論的信念。

本來自然主義者利用科學方法證立信念，是對人類理性的恪守，合乎建立信念的倫理。不過綜觀以上自然主義式無神論的論證，往往是走多了一步，對有神論作出質問後，便由此建立了無神論的信念。正正是這一步，導致了自然主義式的無神論者走出了人類理性的邊界，僭越理性的表現。由於無神論本身也是一個信念，所以建立這信念本身也要經過理性的質問，正面建立。而不是單單質問有神論的信念後，便直接建立無神論的信念。這樣建立無神論的信念，並不合乎建立信念的倫理。而因著自然主義式的無神論對理性的僭越，更能襯托出不可知論對理性有限的安份恪守。

不可知論的安份
在了解我們理性的限制下，最正確不過的選擇，既非對神的存在予以肯定的有神論，亦非否定神存在的無神論，而是恪守人類理性的有限，對神是否存在，安份地承認這問題不可知。

不可知論有三個層次：弱不可知論(Agnosticism in weak sense)、中等不可知論(Agnosticism in moderate sense)及強不可知論(Agnosticism in strong sense)。弱不可知論者是他了解神的概念，但非相信或非不信神的存在，且負責整個宇宙的生成；中等不可知論者則在弱不可知論之上，肯定了人類既非相信亦非不信神的存在是基於人類無法以理性找出足夠原因及證據證明；強不可知論者再在中等不可知論者之上，作出了判斷，認為旦凡一人非能有足夠原因及證據證明神存在或不存在，而相信神存在或相信神不存在的，是不當的。

正如康德所言，那些嘗試推論出形而上或自然神學(natural theology)的，是在僭越人類純粹理性的有限。基於信念的倫理，我們因有充份證據推論人類理性的有限性，加上這理性的有限是普世的，所以我認為不可知論者必需至少是中等不可知論者。因為在人建立不可知論的立場時，是出於理解到人類理性的有限，所以不能以推論形式提供證據顯示神存在或不存在。下一步，我們要問凡不可知論者是否必需要是強不可知論者，判斷那些信仰是不當的。有些宗教思想家，如丹麥的祈克果，會認為信仰神存在並非不當，但同時理解人類的純粹理性是無法提供足夠的理性基礎支持或否定神是存在的。 因此，他們可說是中等不可知論者。

雖然「神是否存在？」無法以理性推論得知，但是假設神存在的信仰從實踐理性角度是有其價值的，例如康德在《實踐理性批判》中，同樣假設神的存在，以確保「德福一致」。有人會問從其他角度（如實踐理性）相信神存在是否與信念的倫理有違背、雙重標準又或自相矛盾。我認為不是，因為人一生有許多信念，有些是如數學及科學一般，通過理性的質問，提供足夠的證據，而Clifford的信念倫理則只適用於這些與理性掛勾的信念。另一方面，我們還有其他的信念，例如：我有一信念，是某某女孩子十分漂亮。這信念是一美學的信念，但這些信念與純粹理性沾不上邊，而是當下的一種判斷。而我們並不會斥責這些美學的信念為不當，以信念的倫理評定。在實踐理性下的宗教信仰，亦是同一情況，如祈克果這些不可知論者，只要不是基於純粹理性而建立這宗教信仰，所以並無不當。這種處理方法與現象學的「放在括號內，存而不論」有相近之處，便是不意圖僭越理性的有限，以理性建立神存在的信念，而是在理性的界限內，以其他面向的現象討論神是否存在的價值，建立另一種指向我們生活的信念。

結語
通過上文的討論，我們得知在建立信念時，我們必須以理性對其進行質問，從而得出證據支持自己的信念。同時，我們亦需要察覺人類理性的有限，不能對可落入範疇整理的現象以外之物，試圖以理性論之。奈何無神論者則試圖僭越理性的有限，欲以理性證明神的存在，但這種嘗試是不能提供足夠的證據支持其信念的。因此我們必需安守人類理性的有限，基於這有限承認人們無法以理性提供足夠原因證明或反證神的存在。不過，我們不能否認一個宗教信仰是有其實踐理性意義上的作用，所以宗教信仰是可被建立的，只要不是以理性嘗試論證之，仍是可被允許的。就如《穹蒼下的女神》中希帕提婭當被問及她信甚麼時，曾說一話：「我相信哲學」。我們必需理解到，哲學可不只是單單理性的推理遊戲，而是關乎生命，包含不同向度的討論，如倫理、美學等等。因此，我們只需要了解我們不同信念建立的原因，恪守人類理性的有限，則可稱為啟蒙的人。

參考文獻：
1. CLIFFORD, William Kingdon, “The Ethics of Belief”
2. HUME, David(1739), A treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part iv, Section vii.
3. KANT, Immanuel (1784), Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Werner S. Pluhar, (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1996)
4. KANT, Immauel (1784), “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press), 11-23.
5. PLATO, “Republic”, trans. G.M.A. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve, in Plato Complete works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company).
6. ROWE, William L. (1998). Agnosticism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/K001

What is the Political Role of Philosopher in a State?

Introduction

Nowadays, especially in Hong Kong, the image of philosophers is always scholars in ivory tower, doing nothing related to the reality. However, just like what the German Philosopher, Martin Heidegger said, ‘Philosophy as rationalistic constructs cut off from life is without power…’[1] which implied philosophers can never just stay in the ivory tower and do the academic works without responding to life. As a result, the question in the aspect of Political Philosophy that I struggle the most , as a Philosophy major student, is not the common questions like ‘Who should rule?’, ‘How should the property be distributed?’ etc, but a question closely related to the life of a Philosopher, ‘What is the political role of a philosopher in a state?’ One of the possible roles pop into our mind would probably be the ‘Philosopher King’ mentioned in Plato’s Republic (Πολιτεία) or Sage King in Chinese Philosophy. However, I am going to argue against this role and argue for another, ‘Secret Consultant’ mentioned in Kant’s Toward Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden).

In this article, I would (1) elaborate the argument for Plato’s Philosopher King; (2) argue against Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’(3) argue for Kant’s ‘Secret Consultant’; (4) propose and defend possible counter-argument against (3); and (4)make a conclusion that philosophers should insist on the use of their reasoning and keep check on the justice of the state.

What is Plato’s Philosopher King?

In Republic, Plato tries to argue that, the guardian of the state should have the crafts of ruling the state, while philosophical training is one of the necessary criteria for the guardian of the state. This makes the possible choice of the guardian narrow down into the only one, philosophers, who are well trained for that necessary qualification. In addition to this, Plato also claims the taking of the guardian role as a necessary duty for philosopher to prevent being ruled by others who do not acquire the skill of ruling by the philosophical training. In other words, the role, a necessary role, for philosopher in the state must be being the guardian, ‘philosopher king’. [2]

Why not Plato’s Philosopher King?

To start with, I would like to claim that the existence of a ‘Philosopher King’ in a state is spoiling the human dignity of citizens, who are the autonomous of human beings, i.e. the only owner of him/her should only be himself/herself. ‘Philosopher King’ is indifferent to a dictator of a state, and he/she owns the state, or even the citizens. However, a state is not a belonging, such that no one should own this state or own the citizens. “It is a society of human beings that no one other than itself can command or dispose of.” [3] Due to the respect to each autonomous human being, that is why “Rule for the people must be rule by the people” [4], thus, ‘philosopher king’, a dictator are not justified.

Someone may say the above argue against dictatorship as a whole but not only ‘philosopher king’. What if the ‘philosopher king’ being elected by the people among a group of philosophers? My answer is still negative, as the ruling of a state should be by a group of professionals in different aspect.

Plato points out that philosophical training is one of the necessary criteria for the guardian of the state. He is right that it is just ‘one of’, but not ‘all of’. From Plato’s proposal of the education for the ‘philosopher king’, we can see Plato also agree the needs of other criteria, like skills of literacy, musical, mathematical, military and physical education. In Plato’s eyes, philosopher is an idea[5] of human being. He is able to learn all sorts of thing, not only philosophy, well. However, this is just a utopian thought. In reality, what we can find are different professionals, (i.e. philosopher is only one of the many), but not one with all professions. So what makes a better sense is a cooperation between different professionals, and philosopher is one of them, but the philosopher should holding no power (will be discussed in the latter part of this article).

Plato also claims philosopher plays a role of ‘philosopher king’ is a necessary duty, so as to prevent a worse life. However, for a state cooperated by different professionals, when the professionals cooperate well and they are conscientious about their responsibilities, I cannot envisage that a state ruled by only philosopher king(s), who never be proficient in all aspect, would be better than the cooperation of diversify professionals. Thus, the necessary duty for philosopher to take up the role of ‘philosopher king’ for a better life does not sound.

Why a ‘Secret Consultant’?

In order to proceed to the following discussion, I assume the state is cooperated by a group of diverse professionals who are elected by the people to represent the people. By that, I am going to argue that for the political role of philosophers should be a ‘secret consultant’, mentioned in Kant’s Toward Perpetual Peace (1975), in the political realm by speaking on behalf of reason and what I meant ‘secret’ is the independence from the authority.

“A state would therefore invite their instruction tacitly, and this is tantamount to saying that it would allow them to speak freely and publicly about universal maxims…This does not mean, however, that a state must give the principles of philosopher precedence over the findings of lawyers (representatives of the power of the state), but only that they be given a hearing.” [6] Toward perpetual peace - Kant

To have a better understanding to the role of philosopher as a ‘secret consultant’, by the inspiration of Prof Stephen R. Palmquist’s article, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”" [7], I am going to project the situation in the university to the state and demonstrate the role of philosopher as a ‘secret consultant’ by the role of faculty of philosophy demonstrated in Kant’s The Conflict of the Faculties (1978).

During lately 18^th century, Prussian university is composited by four faculties, Philosophy, Theology, Law and Medicine, a four-fold structure. Among these four faculties, Theology, Law and Medicine were classified as ‘higher faculties’ as they were each responsible for direct training of a specific public servant[8].[9] Philosophy, on the other hand, was classified as ‘lower faculty’, because it does nothing in the professional training of public servants. [10]

In Kant’s The conflict of the faculties, the faculty of philosophy’s only concern is the truth, thus, it is impossible for her to obey any authority, except rationality. So the faculty’s authority can be said that ground in reason[11] alone. [12] And this crucially allows the faculty of philosophy, though under the titled of ‘lower’ faculty or even ‘handmaiden’ of theology (and likewise of the other two faculties), instead served as a critical tool or provided a ‘checks and balances’ [13] to help keep the three ‘higher’ faculties in line, [14] and to keep a check on[15] the three ‘higher faculties’. [16]

In a political context, we can look into the differences between the ways of the faculty of law and the faculty of philosophy dealing with legal issues as an example for the ‘use’ of faculty of philosophy. The former would have the sole task of teaching and interpreting the given body of law, as handed by whatever authority holds sovereign power in the state[17]; while the later would investigate whether such laws themselves need to be improved or not by the rationality. When there is any detail to be improved, the later would have the mission of voicing out that on behalf on the use of reason.

From the above, we can see that a philosopher should be persisting to truth and obeying only the rationality. And from the free and open conflict in a university-based setting to the faculty of law, Kant obviously intended to suggest that philosopher’s role is to provide a universal, rational standpoint for assessing and improving our actual empirical legislation[18] (or even other knowledge like theology, science, etc.) and “bears the torch before her ‘mistress’ or carries the train behind”. [19]

Propose and Defend Possible Counter-argument

Someone may then argue that, “Why the philosopher has to be ‘secret’?” In this part, I would like to defend this argument from the internal factor (i.e. factor of philosophers themselves) to external factor (i.e. factor of the government or authority).

By starting with the internal factor, Plato claims that the designed philosophical education makes a person resistant to temptation of breaking the laws. [20] Once again, that is another utopian thought or assumption of Plato by ignoring the reality of selfishness and evil in human nature necessitates. Just like the concept, Yinian sanqian[21], of Tiantai[22] (i.e. one of the important schools of Buddhism in China), as human beings are born to be free and can travel to any of the ‘world of sanqian’ [23] including both good and evil. Even one who reaches the world of Buddha, he/she can immediately fall into the world of Evil in his or her next ‘thought’. [24] “Power rotten one’s mind” and “the possession of power unavoidably corrupts the free judgment of reason.” [25], so philosopher should not be a power holder.

Someone may then say, “This is the human nature of all human beings, why should we distinguish philosophers from the others?” Philosopher plays a role of providing a universal, rational standpoint for assessing and improving our state, and for the one providing ‘checks and balances’, we have to ensure the judgment claimed by them purely on the ground of reason, without being polluted by any bias.

For the government, as it never protects one because of truth, but protects only because advantages may accrue to the government if it does so, [26] government would then regulate what to do to protect the advantages. On the other hand, philosopher, in the public use of his reason, should enjoy an unrestricted freedom to make use of his own reason and to speak in his own person. [27] Thus, philosophers, who are taking the roles as ‘secret consultants’, should always stand at a point outside the authority and only obey their own rationality.

Conclusion

Due to human dignity, philosophers are never expected to be the king but just to be a ‘secret consultants’ in a state and never be a philosopher in an ivory tower playing conceptual games. The Greek female philosopher, Hypatia, is the model of being a ‘secret consultant’. At her time, the state she lived, Alexandria, Egypt, is full of religious turmoil. She pointed out to the prefect of Alexandria that the Christians do not query what they believe. A statement attributed to Hypatia reads, “To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing.” [28]Finally, the Bishop blamed her public speaking and words. And this leads to her destiny, violent death by a gang of Christian mobs.

Philosophers should insist on the use of their reasoning and keep check on the justice of the state. Once there is any injustice, they should not be mean with giving criticisms on the ground of reason, even the authority is trying to spoiling the use of rationality, like by religion, or even threaten them with death; they should not submit themselves to the authority.

Footnote

1. 黃文宏，〈海德格事實生命的現象學與根本學的理念: 以《戰時緊迫學期講稿》為例〉，《國立政治大學哲學學報》第十四期 (2005)，107-168: Martin Heidegger, ‘Philosophie als vom Leben abgelöstes, rationalistisches Gebilde ist machtlos,..’(GA 1: 410)

2. Jonathan Wolff, An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 66-69

3. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 318 (8:344)

4. Jonathan Wolff, An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 71

5. [EL] εἶδος

6. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 337 (8:869)

7. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 601-612.

8. priests, lawyers, and doctors who assist the public in solving problems relating to spiritual well-being, their property and their health, respectively

9. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 601&604.

10. Someone may question the relevance of the university structure which is neither nowadays’ nor Hong Kong’s in the discourse, however, the truth that there is actually no big difference between the university 200 years ago and that of nowadays all over the world. The university structure, especially in Hong Kong, though does not explicitly label ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ faculty, implicitly those which directly related to a kind of professional are always crowned.

11. In the following, the use of reason (i.e. Universal (morally legislative) human reason) would mostly refer to the public use of reason in Kant’s An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? (1784).

12. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 605.

13. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 604.

14. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 601.

15. [De] kontrollieren

16. 關子尹 (2009)，〈從康德《學院的爭議》談哲學教育〉，《修遠之路：香港中文大學哲學系六十周年系慶論文集‧同寅卷》，劉國英、張燦輝編（香港：中文大學出版社），32-33。

17. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 605.

18. Stephen R. Palmquist, "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (eds.), Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 605.

19. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 338 (8:869)

20. Jonathan Wolff, An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 69

21. [中] 一念三千

22. [中] 天台宗

23. [中] 三千世界

24. [中] 念

25. Immauel Kant, “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 338 (8:869)

26. Immauel Kant, “The Contest of Faculties”, in Kant: political writings, trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Hans Reiss (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 176.

27. Immauel Kant, “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 19 (8:38)

28. Simon Critchley, The Book of Dead Philosophers (London: Granta Books, 2008), 66-67

Bibliography

1. 關子尹 (2009)，〈從康德《學院的爭議》談哲學教育〉，《修遠之路：香港中文大學哲學系六十周年系慶論文集‧同寅卷》，劉國英、張燦輝編（香港：中文大學出版社），31-44。

2. 黃文宏 (2005)，〈海德格事實生命的現象學與根本學的理念: 以《戰時緊迫學期講稿》為例〉，《國立政治大學哲學學報》第十四期，107-168。

3. Critchley, Simon (2008), The Book of Dead Philosophers (London: Granta Books)

4. KANT, Immauel (1784), “An answer to the question: What is enlightenment?”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press), 11-23.

5. KANT, Immauel (1795), “Toward Perpetual Peace”, in Practical Philosophy, trans. & ed. Mary J. Gregor (New York: Cambridge University Press), 317-351

6. KANT, Immauel (1798), “The Contest of Faculties”, in Kant: political writings, trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Hans Reiss (New York: Cambridge University Press), 176-190.

7. Palmquist, Stephen R. (2008), "The Philosopher as a “Secret Agent” for Peace: Taking Seriously Kant’s Revival of the “Old Question”", in Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants, vol. 4 of Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses , eds. Valerio Rohden, Ricardo R. Terra and Guido A. de Almeida (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 601-612.

8. PLATO, “Republic”, trans. G.M.A. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve, in Plato Complete works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company).

9. WOLFF, Jonathan (1996), An introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press).