Year 11 CAIE Philosophy: Core Concepts Review | Year 11 CAIE 哲学：核心知识点梳理

📚 Year 11 CAIE Philosophy: Core Concepts Review | Year 11 CAIE 哲学：核心知识点梳理

In the Year 11 CAIE Philosophy syllabus, students encounter a range of fundamental questions about knowledge, reality, mind, ethics and politics. This article distils the core concepts you need to grasp, presenting each idea in clear, paired English and Chinese paragraphs. Use it as a revision map to consolidate your understanding and prepare for exam-style essays.

在 Year 11 CAIE 哲学课程大纲中，学生要面对一系列关于知识、实在、心灵、伦理与政治的根本问题。本文梳理了你必须掌握的核心概念，以清晰对应的中英段落呈现每个思想。将它用作复习地图，巩固理解并为考试风格的论文做好准备。

1. What is Philosophy? | 什么是哲学？

Philosophy is the rational and critical investigation of fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, values, reason and language. Unlike empirical sciences, it relies heavily on conceptual analysis and logical argument rather than laboratory experiments. In the CAIE course, you practise constructing and evaluating arguments, distinguishing between valid and sound reasoning.

哲学是对涉及存在、知识、价值、理性与语言的根本问题所进行的理性批判探究。与经验科学不同，它主要依靠概念分析和逻辑论证，而非实验室实验。在 CAIE 课程中，你要练习构建和评估论证，区分有效推理与可靠推理。

Philosophical inquiry often begins with conceptual clarification: asking ‘What do we mean by…?’ before answering deeper questions. For instance, before deciding whether we have free will, we must clarify what ‘free will’ means. This habit of precise thinking underpins all the topics that follow.

哲学探究通常始于概念澄清：在回答更深层问题之前先问“我们所说的……是什么意思？”。例如，在决定我们是否拥有自由意志之前，我们必须澄清“自由意志”的含义。这种精确思维的习惯是后续所有主题的基础。

2. The Definition of Knowledge: JTB and Gettier | 知识的定义：JTB 与葛梯尔问题

The traditional definition of knowledge is ‘justified true belief’ (JTB). For a person S to know that P, three conditions must hold: P must be true, S must believe that P, and S must have justification for believing P. This tripartite account has shaped epistemology for centuries.

知识的传统定义是“得到辩护的真信念”（JTB）。要使一个人 S 知道命题 P，必须满足三个条件：P 为真，S 相信 P，并且 S 具有相信 P 的辩护。这个三元解释塑造了数百年的认识论。

Edmund Gettier’s 1963 paper challenged JTB by presenting counterexamples where someone has a justified true belief that nonetheless seems to fall short of knowledge. In a classic Gettier case, a person correctly believes that ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’ based on strong evidence, but the belief is true only by luck. This reveals that the three conditions are not jointly sufficient.

埃德蒙·葛梯尔 1963 年的论文通过反例挑战了 JTB：一个人拥有得到辩护的真信念，但似乎仍不构成知识。在经典的葛梯尔案例中，某人基于强证据相信“将要得到那份工作的人口袋里有十枚硬币”，但这个信念之所以为真纯属运气。这表明这三个条件合起来并不充分。

Responses to the Gettier problem include strengthening the justification condition (e.g., infallibilism) or adding a fourth ‘no false lemmas’ condition. The debate shows that defining knowledge is far more complex than the JTB formula suggests.

对葛梯尔问题的回应包括强化辩护条件（例如，不可错论）或增加第四个“无错误引理”条件。这场辩论表明，定义知识远比 JTB 公式复杂得多。

3. Rationalism vs. Empiricism | 理性主义与经验主义

Rationalism holds that some knowledge is innate or can be accessed through reason alone, without sensory experience. Plato’s theory of Forms and Descartes’ clear and distinct ideas are classic rationalist positions. Rationalists emphasise a priori knowledge, such as mathematical truths, arguing that the mind brings important structures to experience.

理性主义认为，某些知识是先天的，或可仅凭理性获取而无需感官经验。柏拉图的形式论与笛卡尔的清晰分明观念都是典型的理性主义立场。理性主义者强调先验知识，比如数学真理，认为心智给经验带来了重要的结构。

Empiricism claims that all knowledge ultimately derives from sensory experience. John Locke’s tabula rasa (blank slate) metaphor captures this: the mind at birth is a blank sheet, and experience writes upon it. Empiricists argue that even complex ideas are formed from simple impressions, as Hume demonstrated with his copy principle.

经验主义主张所有知识最终都源于感官经验。约翰·洛克的白板比喻抓住了这一点：心灵在出生时是一张白纸，经验在其上书写。经验主义者认为，即使是复杂的观念也是由简单印象形成的，正如休谟用他的摹写原则所证明的那样。

In the CAIE syllabus, you should be able to compare how rationalism and empiricism treat subjects like causation, the self and moral knowledge. The tension between these two schools runs through much of modern philosophy. Recognising their strengths and weaknesses is key to evaluating epistemological arguments.

在 CAIE 课程大纲中，你应能比较理性主义和经验主义如何处理因果关系、自我和道德知识等主题。这两大流派的张力贯穿现代哲学的大部分内容。认识到它们的优势与弱点是评估认识论论证的关键。

4. The Self: Dualism vs. Physicalism | 自我：二元论与物理主义

The problem of the self asks what makes you the same person over time and whether the mind is distinct from the body. Substance dualism, most famously defended by Descartes, claims that mind and body are two fundamentally different substances: the mind is non‑physical and thinking, while the body is physical and extended.

自我问题追问的是什么使你在时间推移中保持着同一个人，以及心灵是否区别于身体。实体二元论，最著名的是笛卡尔所捍卫的，主张心灵与身体是两种根本不同的实体：心灵是非物理的、能思维的，而身体是物理的、广延的。

Physicalism, in contrast, argues that mental states are identical to or supervene on physical brain states. Identity theory and functionalism are prominent physicalist theories. They eliminate the need for an immaterial soul, explaining consciousness in terms of neural processes. The challenge is to account for subjective, qualitative experiences (qualia), such as the redness of a rose or the pain of a headache.

与之相反，物理主义认为心理状态等同于物理脑状态或随附于其上。同一论和功能主义是突出的物理主义理论。它们无需非物质灵魂，用神经过程来解释意识。其挑战在于解释主观的、质性的体验（感质），例如玫瑰的红色或头痛的疼痛。

When revising, contrast the conceivability argument (I can conceive of myself existing without a body, therefore mind and body are distinct) with the neural dependence argument (damage to the brain changes personality and cognition). This topic rewards clear analysis of criteria for personal identity: psychological continuity, bodily continuity, or both.

复习时，要对比可设想性论证（我能设想自己无身体而存在，因此心身有别）与神经依赖论证（大脑受损会改变人格与认知）。该主题需要你清晰地分析人格同一性的标准：心理连续性、身体连续性，还是两者兼有。

5. Arguments for God’s Existence | 上帝存在的论证

The ontological argument, formulated by Anselm, defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. If such a being exists only in the mind, it would be less great than if it existed in reality. Therefore, God must exist in reality. Gaunilo and Kant offered powerful criticisms: Gaunilo parodied the reasoning with a perfect island, and Kant argued that existence is not a real predicate.

由安瑟伦提出的本体论论证将上帝定义为“无法设想比之更伟大的存在者”。如果这样一个存在者只存在于心中，那么它就不如同时存在于现实中那样伟大。因此，上帝必定存在于现实中。高尼罗和康德提出了有力的批评：高尼罗用一个完美的岛屿来戏仿这一推理，康德则论证存在并非真正的谓词。

The teleological argument (design argument) points to the apparent order and purpose in nature. William Paley’s watchmaker analogy—if you find a watch, you infer a watchmaker—suggests the universe, with its complexity, also requires an intelligent designer. David Hume countered that the analogy is weak, that evil and imperfection undermine the inference, and that the universe might be more like a living organism than a machine.

目的论论证（设计论证）指向自然界中明显的秩序和目的。威廉·佩利的钟表匠类比——如果你发现一块手表，你会推断有一个制表匠——表明宇宙因其复杂性也需要一个智能设计者。大卫·休谟反驳说，这个类比薄弱，邪恶和不完美削弱了这一推论，而且宇宙或许更像一个活有的机体而非机器。

Other arguments include the cosmological argument (first cause) and the moral argument. For your exam, be ready to explain at least two arguments in detail, present objections, and evaluate their overall persuasiveness. Remember that many philosophers are agnostic or atheist not because they can disprove God, but because they find the arguments inadequate.

其他论证还包括宇宙论论证（第一因）和道德论证。为考试准备，你要能够详细解释至少两个论证，提出反对意见并评估其整体说服力。记住，许多哲学家是不可知论者或无神论者，并非因为他们能证伪上帝，而是因为他们认为这些论证不够充分。

6. Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism | 伦理理论：功利主义

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory asserting that the right action is the one that maximises overall happiness or utility. Jeremy Bentham proposed a quantitative ‘hedonic calculus’ based on the intensity, duration, certainty and extent of pleasure. His principle of utility states: ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number.’

功利主义是一种后果论理论，主张正确的行为是实现最大总体幸福或效用的那个行为。杰里米·边沁提出了一个基于快乐的强度、持续时间、确定性和范围的量化“快乐计算法”。他的功利原则是：“最大多数人的最大幸福。”

John Stuart Mill refined utilitarianism by distinguishing higher and higher-quality pleasures. He famously wrote, ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’ Mill’s version addresses the criticism that utilitarianism is a doctrine worthy only of swine. Rule utilitarianism further modifies the theory by following rules that generally promote happiness, rather than calculating each act individually.

约翰·斯图亚特·密尔通过区分更高级、更高质量的快乐来完善功利主义。他有句名言：“宁做一个不满足的人，也不做一头满足的猪；宁做不满足的苏格拉底，也不做满足的傻瓜。”密尔的版本回应了功利主义是只配猪的学说的批评。规则功利主义进一步修正该理论，主张遵循那些通常能增进幸福的规则，而非对每个行为单独计算。

Criticisms include the demandingness objection (constantly calculating consequences), the problem of justice (it may permit punishing an innocent person if it produces greater overall happiness), and the difficulty of predicting outcomes. Utilitarians reply by refining the theory or challenging the intuitions behind the objections.

批评包括要求过高的反对（不断计算后果）、正义难题（如果产生更大的总体幸福，可能允许惩罚无辜者）以及预测结果的困难。功利主义者通过完善理论或质疑反对意见背后的直觉来回应。

7. Ethical Theories: Kantian Deontology | 伦理理论：康德义务论

Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics judges actions by their adherence to duty, not by consequences. The core is the Categorical Imperative: act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This test of universalisability reveals contradictions in conception or in will.

伊曼努尔·康德的义务论伦理根据行为是否符合义务来评判，而非依据后果。其核心是定言命令：只按照你同时愿意它成为一条普遍法则的准则去行动。这种可普遍化检验揭示了构想中的矛盾或意愿中的矛盾。

The second formulation, the Formula of Humanity, commands that we never treat persons merely as a means to an end but always also as ends in themselves. This grounds human dignity and prohibits exploitation. For instance, lying to a friend to gain money treats the friend merely as a means, violating rationality and respect.

第二个表述，即人性公式，命令我们绝不把人仅仅当作手段，而总是同时当作目的本身。这为人性尊严奠定了基础，并禁止剥削。例如，为了钱财对朋友撒谎，就是把朋友仅仅当作了手段，这违反了理性和尊重。

Kant’s ethics is rigorous and gives clear prohibitions against lying, breaking promises and killing. However, critics point to its inflexibility—the ‘murderer at the door’ case shows that telling the truth to a would‑be murderer seems intuitively wrong. Deontologists respond by clarifying that the maxim must be fully specified, or by arguing that morality cannot be built on case‑by‑case intuition.

康德的伦理学是严格的，明确禁止撒谎、违背承诺和杀害。然而，批评者指出其不灵活之处——“门口的凶手”案例表明，对想行凶的人说实话直觉上似乎是错误的。义务论者回应说，准则必须被充分具体地说明，或者辩称道德不能建立在逐案例的直觉之上。

8. Virtue Ethics | 美德伦理学

Virtue ethics shifts the focus from ‘What should I do?’ to ‘What kind of person should I be?’ Rooted in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, it emphasises character and the cultivation of virtues as the path to eudaimonia—a flourishing life. A virtue is a stable disposition to act, think and feel in the right way, lying at a mean between two extremes.

美德伦理学将焦点从“我应当做什么”转向“我应当成为什么样的人”。它植根于亚里士多德的《尼各马可伦理学》，强调品格和美德的培养是通向至福（eudaimonia）——一种蓬勃生活的道路。美德是一种以正确方式行动、思考和感受的稳定倾向，处于两个极端之间的中道。

Courage, for instance, is the mean between cowardice and rashness; generosity is between stinginess and wastefulness. Practical wisdom (phronesis) is the intellectual virtue that enables a person to discern the right mean in each situation. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean is not a simple arithmetic average but a target that the wise person aims at.

例如，勇敢是怯懦与鲁莽之间的中道；慷慨是吝啬与浪费之间的中道。实践智慧（phronesis）是使一个人能在每种情况下辨识正确中道的理智美德。亚里士多德的中庸学说不是简单的算术平均，而是明智者所瞄准的目标。

Modern virtue ethics, due to philosophers like Elizabeth Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre, revives the importance of community, tradition and narrative in moral development. A key strength is that it accommodates emotions and the complexity of real moral life. However, critics argue it may lack clear action‑guidance and can struggle with resolving conflicts between virtues.

现代美德伦理学，经由伊丽莎白·安斯康姆和阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔等哲学家，重新提倡了社群、传统和叙事在道德发展中的重要性。其一大优势是能够容纳情感和真实道德生活的复杂性。然而，批评者认为它可能缺乏明确的行动指导，并且在解决美德之间的冲突时会有困难。

9. Political Philosophy: Liberty | 政治哲学：自由

Isaiah Berlin’s famous distinction between negative and positive liberty is central to political thought. Negative liberty is freedom from external interference: I am free to the extent that no one else blocks my action. Positive liberty is the freedom to be one’s own master, to act on one’s higher self or rational will, often linked to self-mastery and autonomy.

以赛亚·伯林对消极自由与积极自由的著名区分是政治思想的核心。消极自由是免于外部干涉的自由：只要没有人阻碍我的行动，我就是自由的。积极自由是成为自己主人的自由，是依据更高的自我或理性意志行动的自由，常与自我掌控和自主联系在一起。

Berlin warned that positive liberty can be dangerously extended: if someone claims to know what your ‘true’ self wants, they may force you to be ‘free’ by coercing you into a rational life. This leads to the tyranny of ideology. In CAIE, you might be asked to discuss whether we can distinguish between genuine freedom and mere licence.

伯林警告说，积极自由可能被危险地延伸：如果有人声称知道你的“真实”自我想要什么，他们就可能通过强迫你过理性生活来使你“自由”。这会导致意识形态的暴政。在 CAIE 中，你可能会被要求讨论我们能否区分真正的自由与单纯的放纵。

John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is another vital concept: the only justification for interfering with an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. Mill defends extensive freedom of thought, speech and lifestyle, as these contribute to human flourishing and the pursuit of truth. Paternalistic and moralistic interventions are, for Mill, illegitimate.

约翰·斯图亚特·密尔的伤害原则是另一个关键概念：干涉个人自由的唯一正当理由是防止对他人的伤害。密尔捍卫广泛的思想、言论和生活方式自由，因为这些有助于人类福祉和对真理的追求。在密尔看来，家长式干预和道德主义干预都是不合法的。

10. Justice: Rawls and Nozick | 正义：罗尔斯与诺齐克

John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness is a landmark in distributive justice. He asks us to imagine an original position behind a veil of ignorance, where we do not know our talents, class or conception of the good. In this position, rational people would agree to two principles: equal basic liberties for all, and social and economic inequalities arranged to benefit the least advantaged—the difference principle.

约翰·罗尔斯的作为公平的正义理论是分配正义的里程碑。他要求我们想象一个原初状态，在无知之幕后面，我们不知道自己的天资、阶级或善观念。在这种状态下，理性的人会同意两条原则：所有人平等地享有基本自由；以及社会和经济的不平等要安排得有利于最不利者——即差别原则。

Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory offers a libertarian critique. For Nozick, justice is about respecting individual rights and holdings acquired through just acquisition, just transfer, and rectification of injustice. Any patterned distribution, like Rawls’s difference principle, will require constant interference with free exchanges—taxation, for Nozick, is on a par with forced labour.

罗伯特·诺齐克的资格理论提供了一种自由意志主义批判。对诺齐克来说，正义是关于尊重个人权利和通过正当获取、正当转让以及对不正义的矫正而获得的持有物。任何模式化的分配，如罗尔斯的差别原则，都将需要不断干涉自愿交换——对诺齐克而言，税收无异于强制劳动。

The debate between Rawls and Nozick captures a deep tension between equality and liberty. In your revision, weigh the intuitive appeal of benefiting the worst-off against concerns about individual liberty and the minimal state. Consider the implications for welfare, healthcare and education policy.

罗尔斯与诺齐克之间的争论捕捉了平等与自由之间的深层张力。复习时，要权衡有利于最不利者的直觉吸引力与对个人自由和最弱意义国家的关切。考虑这对福利、医疗和教育政策的影响。

11. The Problem of Evil | 恶的问题

The problem of evil is the most powerful argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. The logical version claims that the existence of any evil at all is logically incompatible with such a God. If God is all-good, He would want to eliminate evil; if all-powerful, He could. Yet evil exists, so the traditional God does not.

恶的问题是对全能、全善的上帝存在的最有力反驳。逻辑版本主张，任何恶的存在在逻辑上都与这样一位上帝不相容。如果上帝是全善的，他就会想要消除恶；如果他是全能的，他就能消除。但恶存在，所以传统的上帝不存在。

The evidential version focuses on the sheer amount and distribution of pointless suffering. It argues that the existence of gratuitous evil makes God’s existence highly improbable. Theodicies attempt to justify God’s permission of evil: the free will defence argues that moral evil results from human freedom, a greater good that requires the possibility of evil.

证据版本聚焦于大量无意义的痛苦及其分布。它主张，无故恶的存在使得上帝的存在极不可能。神义论试图为上帝容许恶辩护：自由意志辩护认为，道德恶源于人的自由，自由是一种更大的善，它要求恶的可能性。

Other theodicies include soul-making (Irenaeus/Hick), which sees suffering as necessary for moral and spiritual growth. Critics reply that not all suffering leads to growth, that animals suffer without moral improvement, and that an omnipotent God could have created a world with free will and without evil. This topic requires careful evaluation of both logical consistency and empirical evidence.

其他神义论包括灵魂塑造说（爱任纽/希克），它认为苦难是道德和灵性成长所必需的。批评者回应说，并非所有苦难都能带来成长，动物受苦而无道德提升，而且全能的上帝本可以创造一个既有自由意志又没有恶的世界。这个主题需要仔细评估逻辑一致性和经验证据。

12. Tips for Structuring Your Responses | 答题结构建议

CAIE Philosophy essays reward clarity, precision and critical evaluation. Begin with a short introduction that defines key terms and signals your line of argument. Use topic sentences to introduce each point, and always illustrate abstract ideas with concrete examples. The following table summarises a useful paragraph structure.

CAIE 哲学论文看重清晰、精确和批判性评价。以一个简短的开头开始，定义关键术语并表明你的论证路线。用主题句引入每个要点，并始终用具体例子说明抽象思想。下面的表格总结了一个有用的段落结构。

Element 要素	Purpose 目的
Point 论点	State the claim clearly. 清晰地陈述主张。
Explanation 解释	Unpack the reasoning and connect to theory. 展开推理并与理论关联。
Example 例证	Use a brief, precise illustration. 使用简短精确的说明。
Evaluation 评价	Consider counterarguments and strength of the argument. 考虑反证和论证力度。

When comparing theories, avoid simply listing similarities and differences. Instead, engage with a specific point of conflict, explain why one theory might offer a stronger response, and acknowledge limitations on both sides. Practise writing under timed conditions to internalise this process.

比较理论时，避免简单罗列相似点与不同点。相反，要针对某个具体的冲突点，解释为何一个理论可能给出更强的回应，并承认双方的局限。在限时条件下练习写作，以将这一过程内化。

Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Year 11 CAIE Philosophy: Core Concepts Review | Year 11 CAIE 哲学：核心知识点梳理