📚 Year 9 AQA Philosophy: Core Knowledge Review | Year 9 AQA 哲学：核心知识点梳理
Welcome to your Year 9 AQA Philosophy revision guide. This article covers the essential topics and concepts you need to master, from the basics of philosophical enquiry to key debates in epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. Understanding these foundations will sharpen your critical thinking and prepare you for more advanced study in philosophy.
欢迎来到你的 Year 9 AQA 哲学复习指南。本文涵盖了你需要掌握的核心主题与概念，从哲学探究的基础到认识论、伦理学和形而上学的关键辩论。理解这些基础将磨练你的批判性思维，并为更高阶的哲学学习做好准备。
1. What is Philosophy? | 什么是哲学？
Philosophy literally means ‘love of wisdom’. It is the activity of asking fundamental questions about reality, knowledge, morality, reason and existence. Unlike the sciences, which often rely on empirical observation and experimentation, philosophy primarily uses logical reasoning, conceptual analysis and the construction and evaluation of arguments to examine these questions. The goal is not merely to gather facts, but to achieve a deeper understanding of the world and our place within it.
哲学字面意思是“爱智慧”。它是一种追问现实、知识、道德、理性和存在等根本性问题的活动。与通常依赖经验观察和实验的科学不同，哲学主要使用逻辑推理、概念分析以及论证的构建与评估来审视这些问题。其目标不仅仅是收集事实，而是对世界以及我们在其中的位置获得更深刻的理解。
2. The Structure of Arguments | 论证的结构
A philosophical argument is a set of statements where some (premises) are offered as reasons to support another (the conclusion). A good argument must be valid, meaning the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If the premises are also true, the argument is sound. For example: Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This argument is valid; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
一个哲学论证是一组陈述，其中一些陈述（前提）被提供作为理由来支持另一个陈述（结论）。一个好的论证必须是有效的，即结论在逻辑上是从前提推导出来的。如果前提也是真的，那么这个论证就是可靠的。例如：前提1：所有人都会死。前提2：苏格拉底是人。结论：因此，苏格拉底会死。这个论证是有效的；如果前提为真，结论必然为真。
We also evaluate arguments by looking for fallacies – common errors in reasoning, such as ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) or begging the question (assuming what you are trying to prove). Identifying fallacies helps us separate strong reasoning from weak persuasion.
我们还通过寻找谬误来评估论证——这些是推理中的常见错误，例如人身攻击（攻击人而不是论证）或乞题（假设了试图证明的东西）。识别谬误有助于我们将强有力的推理与薄弱的说服区分开来。
3. The Tripartite Definition of Knowledge | 知识的三元定义
For centuries, philosophers defined knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). According to this view, you know a proposition P if and only if: (1) P is true, (2) you believe that P, and (3) your belief is justified. For example, you might believe the bus arrives at 9am; it is true that it arrives at 9am; but you only believe it because you dreamt it. That is not knowledge because the belief is not justified. If you had checked the timetable, you would have justification.
几个世纪以来，哲学家将知识定义为得到辩护的真信念（JTB）。根据这种观点，你知道一个命题P，当且仅当：（1）P是真的，（2）你相信P，并且（3）你的信念是得到辩护的。例如，你可能相信公交车在上午9点到达；9点到达是真的；但你只是因为你梦到它才相信。那不是知识，因为该信念没有得到辩护。如果你查了时刻表，你就有了辩护。
However, the JTB definition was challenged by Edmund Gettier. He provided cases where someone has a justified true belief but, due to luck, we would not say they know. A standard example: Smith believes ‘Jones owns a Ford’ (justified by seeing Jones in a Ford). Smith then deduces the true proposition ‘Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona’ (Brown happens to be in Barcelona, unknown to Smith). Although true and justified, this seems not to be knowledge. This led philosophers to search for an additional condition to rule out such ‘Gettier cases’.
然而，JTB定义受到了埃德蒙·葛梯尔的挑战。他提供了一些案例，在这些案例中，某人拥有得到辩护的真信念，但由于运气，我们不会说他们知道。一个标准例子：史密斯相信“琼斯拥有一辆福特”（通过看到琼斯坐在福特车里而得到辩护）。然后史密斯推断出真命题“要么琼斯拥有一辆福特，要么布朗在巴塞罗那”（布朗碰巧在巴塞罗那，而史密斯不知道）。尽管这个信念是真的且得到辩护，但这似乎不是知识。这促使哲学家们寻找一个额外的条件来排除这种“葛梯尔案例”。
4. Scepticism: Can We Know Anything? | 怀疑论：我们能够知道任何事吗？
Scepticism is the philosophical view that knowledge is impossible, or that we should suspend judgement about many things. Global scepticism claims we cannot know anything at all. Local scepticism targets specific areas, such as the external world or other minds. Descartes introduced the method of doubt: imagine an evil demon that deceives you about everything, even basic maths and sense perceptions. If you cannot rule this out, how can you be certain of anything?
怀疑论是一种哲学观点，认为知识是不可能的，或者我们应该对许多事情悬置判断。全面怀疑论声称我们根本无法知道任何事情。局部怀疑论针对特定领域，例如外部世界或他人的心灵。笛卡尔提出了怀疑的方法：设想一个邪恶的恶魔，它在一切事情上欺骗你，甚至包括基本的数学和感官知觉。如果你无法排除这种可能性，你又如何能够确定任何事情呢？
The ‘brain in a vat’ scenario makes a similar point: if your brain were kept alive in a vat and fed electrical impulses identical to normal brain states, your experiences would be indistinguishable from reality. This thought experiment challenges our certainty about the external world. Responses to scepticism include Moore’s ‘Here is one hand’ argument, claiming that our common-sense certainty is stronger than any sceptical premise, and reliabilism, which ties knowledge to reliable cognitive processes.
“缸中之脑”场景提出了类似的观点：如果你的大脑被放在一个缸中维持生命，并接收与正常大脑状态完全相同的电脉冲，你的体验将与现实无法区分。这个思想实验挑战了我们对外部世界的确定性。对怀疑论的回应包括摩尔的“这里有一只手”论证，声称我们的常识确定性比任何怀疑论前提都更强；以及可靠主义，它将知识视为与可靠的认知过程相关联。
5. Rationalism and Empiricism | 理性主义与经验主义
Rationalists argue that the primary source of knowledge is reason. They believe that the mind contains innate ideas that are not derived from experience, such as mathematical truths and the concept of God. Key rationalists include Plato and Descartes. For instance, Descartes’ ‘cogito ergo sum’ (‘I think, therefore I am’) is known through reason alone, not senses.
理性主义者主张知识的主要来源是理性。他们相信心灵包含天赋观念，这些观念并非来自经验，例如数学真理和上帝的概念。主要的理性主义者包括柏拉图和笛卡尔。例如，笛卡尔的“我思故我在”是仅通过理性知道的，而不是感官。
Empiricists, by contrast, hold that all knowledge originates in sense experience. The mind at birth is a tabula rasa (blank slate), as John Locke argued. Knowledge is built up from simple impressions and ideas through association and habit. David Hume pushed empiricism to its limits, questioning causation and the self. The debate between these two schools shapes how we approach knowledge claims in philosophy.
经验主义者则相反，认为所有知识都起源于感官经验。心灵在出生时是一块“白板”（tabula rasa），正如约翰·洛克所论证的。知识是由简单的印象和观念通过联想和习惯建立起来的。大卫·休谟将经验主义推向极致，质疑因果关系和自我。这两派之间的争论塑造了我们处理哲学知识声称的方式。
6. Introduction to Ethics | 伦理学导论
Ethics, or moral philosophy, investigates how we should live and what actions are right or wrong. It is divided into three main areas: meta-ethics (the nature of moral language and properties), normative ethics (theories and principles that guide our conduct), and applied ethics (addressing specific moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, or animal rights). In Year 9, we focus on the foundational normative theories.
伦理学，或道德哲学，考察我们应该如何生活以及什么行为是对或错。它分为三个主要领域：元伦理学（道德语言和道德属性的本质）、规范伦理学（指导我们行为的理论和原则）和应用伦理学（处理诸如堕胎、安乐死或动物权利等具体道德问题）。在九年级，我们重点学习基础的规范理论。
A key distinction is between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Absolutism claims that there are universal, unchanging moral principles that apply to all people at all times. Relativism, on the other hand, argues that moral truths are relative to culture, society, or individual perspectives. Understanding this distinction is crucial when evaluating ethical theories.
一个关键的区分是道德绝对主义与道德相对主义。绝对主义声称存在普遍、不变的道德原则，适用于所有时代的所有人。另一方面，相对主义主张道德真理是相对于文化、社会或个人观点的。理解这一区分对于评估伦理理论至关重要。
7. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Happiness Principle | 功利主义：最大幸福原则
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and later refined by John Stuart Mill. Its core principle is that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is understood as pleasure and the absence of pain. Bentham proposed a ‘hedonic calculus’ to measure the quantity of pleasure produced by an action, considering factors like intensity, duration, certainty and extent.
功利主义是一种后果主义的伦理理论，由杰里米·边沁提出，后由约翰·斯图尔特·密尔改进。其核心原则是，道德上正确的行为是能为最大多数人带来最大幸福的行为。幸福被理解为快乐和缺少痛苦。边沁提出了一种“幸福计算法”来衡量一个行为产生的快乐量，考虑强度、持续时间、确定性和范围等因素。
Mill shifted the focus from quantity to quality of pleasure, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures (higher pleasures) are superior to mere physical pleasures (lower pleasures). He famously said, ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.’ Critics of utilitarianism point out that it can justify unjust actions if they lead to a net increase in happiness, and that it demands we always calculate consequences, which is impractical.
密尔将重点从快乐的量转移到快乐的质，主张理智和道德的快乐（高级快乐）优于单纯的肉体快乐（低级快乐）。他有一句名言：“宁愿做一个不满足的人，也不愿做一头满足的猪。”功利主义的批评者指出，如果一些不公正的行为能带来幸福净增长，功利主义可能会为其辩护，而且它要求我们总是计算后果，这不切实际。
8. Deontology and Virtue Ethics | 义务论与美德伦理
Deontology, associated with Immanuel Kant, is a duty-based ethical theory. It argues that the morality of an action is determined not by its consequences but by whether it follows a moral rule or duty. Kant proposed the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This means you cannot make exceptions for yourself; lying, for instance, is always wrong because if everyone lied, trust would break down.
义务论与伊曼努尔·康德相关，是一种基于义务的伦理理论。它主张一个行为的道德性不是由其后果决定的，而是由它是否遵循道德规则或义务决定的。康德提出了定言命令，即你只应根据那条你同时也愿意它成为普遍律的准则去行动。这意味着你不能为自己制造例外；例如，说谎总是错的，因为如果每个人都撒谎，信任就会崩溃。
Virtue ethics, inspired by Aristotle, shifts the question from ‘What should I do?’ to ‘What kind of person should I be?’ It focuses on developing good character traits (virtues) such as courage, honesty and generosity, and avoiding vices. The virtuous act is the one a person of practical wisdom would choose. Aristotle emphasised the ‘golden mean’, where virtue lies between two extremes (e.g., courage lies between cowardice and recklessness).
美德伦理学受到亚里士多德的启发，将问题从“我应该做什么？”转向“我应该成为什么样的人？”。它注重于培养良好的品质（美德），如勇敢、诚实和慷慨，并避免恶习。有美德的行为是一个具有实践智慧的人会选择的行为。亚里士多德强调“中庸之道”，即美德处于两个极端之间（例如，勇敢处于懦弱和鲁莽之间）。
9. Free Will and Determinism | 自由意志与决定论
The debate over free will concerns whether we have genuine control over our actions, or whether they are predetermined by prior causes. Hard determinism claims that every event, including human actions, is causally determined by previous events. Since we could not have done otherwise, we cannot be held morally responsible. Incompatibilists argue that free will is incompatible with determinism.
关于自由意志的争论关注我们是否真正控制自己的行为，还是我们的行为已被先前的原因所预定。硬决定论声称每个事件，包括人类行为，都是由先前事件因果决定的。既然我们不可能做出其他选择，我们也就不能承担道德责任。不相容论者主张自由意志与决定论不相容。
Libertarianism (in the metaphysical sense) denies determinism and insists that we do have free will, often pointing to our subjective experience of choice. Compatibilism (soft determinism) argues that free will and determinism are compatible. Compatibilists define free will not as the absence of causation, but as the ability to act according to one’s desires and intentions without external coercion. Hume and many modern philosophers support this view.
自由意志主义（在形而上学意义上）否认决定论，并坚持我们确实拥有自由意志，通常指向我们做出选择的主观体验。相容论（软决定论）主张自由意志与决定论可以相容。相容论者将自由意志定义为不是不受因果影响，而是能够按照自己的欲望和意图行动而不受外部强迫。休谟和许多现代哲学家支持这种观点。
10. Personal Identity: What Makes You, You? | 人格同一性：什么使你成为你？
Personal identity explores what it means for a person to remain the same over time. The body theory holds that you are identical to your physical body; as long as your bodily continuity is maintained, you are the same person. However, this view struggles with thought experiments like the Ship of Theseus: if all your atoms are gradually replaced, are you still the same person?
人格同一性探讨一个人在时间推移中保持同一意味着什么。身体理论认为你与你的身体是同一的；只要你的身体连续性得以保持，你就是同一个人。然而，这种观点在诸如忒修斯之船的思想实验中面临难题：如果你的所有原子都被逐渐替换，你还是同一个人吗？
The psychological continuity theory, favoured by John Locke, argues that personal identity consists in memory and psychological connectedness. You are the person whose experiences you can remember. This view supports the idea that you could survive a brain transplant. Alternative views include the soul theory (an immaterial soul is the bearer of identity) and the bundle theory (the self is just a collection of perceptions, as Hume argued). These debates connect deeply with ethics and what we value about survival.
由约翰·洛克提出的心理连续性理论认为，人格同一性在于记忆和心理联系。你是那个你能记住其经历的人。这种观点支持你可以通过大脑移植而存活的想法。其他观点包括灵魂理论（一个非物质性的灵魂是同一性的承担者）和束理论（自我只是一束知觉的集合，正如休谟所主张的）。这些辩论与伦理学以及我们对生存的珍视之物密切相关。
11. Arguments for God’s Existence | 上帝存在的论证
Philosophy of religion examines rational arguments for and against God’s existence. The design argument (teleological argument), famously put forward by William Paley, uses an analogy: if you find a watch on a heath, its intricate parts working together clearly imply a designer. Similarly, the complexity and order in the universe, such as the human eye, point to an intelligent designer – God. David Hume criticised this analogy, arguing the universe is not sufficiently like a machine, and even if it were, the designer might not be the God of classical theism.
宗教哲学考察支持和反对上帝存在的理性论证。由威廉·佩利著名提出的设计论证（目的论论证）使用了一个类比：如果你在荒地上发现一只手表，它精密的零件协同工作显然暗示着一位设计者。同样，宇宙中的复杂性和秩序，例如人眼，指向一位智慧的设计者——上帝。大卫·休谟批评了这个类比，认为宇宙并不足够像一台机器，而且即使如此，设计者也未必是经典有神论的上帝。
The cosmological argument asks why there is a universe at all. Thomas Aquinas proposed the ‘First Cause’ argument: everything in the universe has a cause, and you cannot have an infinite chain of causes, so there must be a first, uncaused cause – which we call God. Critics ask: why must the first cause be God? And if everything needs a cause, what caused God? The cosmological argument challenges us to think about the ultimate origin of existence.
宇宙论论证追问为什么竟会有宇宙存在。托马斯·阿奎那提出了“第一因”论证：宇宙中的一切都有原因，而因果链条不能无限回溯，因此必须有一个最初的、无原因的原因——我们称之为上帝。批评者问道：为什么第一因必须是上帝？如果一切都需要原因，那是什么导致了上帝？宇宙论论证挑战我们去思考存在的终极起源。
12. The Problem of Evil | 恶的问题
The problem of evil is perhaps the most powerful argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Formulated by thinkers like Epicurus, the logical problem states: if God is all-powerful, he can prevent evil; if he is all-good, he wants to prevent evil; yet evil exists. Therefore, such a God cannot exist. This is a deductive argument: if the premises are true, the conclusion follows.
恶的问题或许是对全能、全善的上帝存在最强有力的反对论证。由伊壁鸠鲁等思想家阐述的逻辑问题指出：如果上帝是全能的，他就能阻止恶；如果他是全善的，他就想要阻止恶；然而恶存在。因此，这样一位上帝不可能存在。这是一个演绎论证：如果前提为真，结论必然跟随。
Responses to the problem include the free will defence, which argues that God allowed evil because genuine free will is a greater good, and free beings sometimes choose evil. Another response is soul-making theodicy, proposed by John Hick, which sees suffering as necessary for spiritual growth and to develop virtues like compassion. The evidential problem of evil, however, points to the sheer amount and distribution of suffering in the world as evidence against a benevolent creator. This remains a central debate in philosophy of religion.
对该问题的回应包括自由意志辩护，它主张上帝允许恶的存在是因为真正的自由意志是更大的善，而自由的受造物有时会选择恶。另一种回应是由约翰·希克提出的灵魂塑造神正论，它认为受苦对于灵性成长和培养像同情心这样的美德是必要的。然而，恶的证据性问题指出世界上苦难的绝对数量和分布构成了对仁慈造物主的证据性反对。这仍然是宗教哲学中的核心辩论。
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导