📚 Year 13 CIE Philosophy: Key Terms Quick Memorization Guide | Year 13 CIE 哲学：词汇术语速记指南
Mastering philosophical terminology is essential for success in Year 13 CIE Philosophy. This guide presents high-frequency terms across the core topics of the syllabus, with clear English definitions and Chinese translations to reinforce understanding and retention. Each term is paired with a concise explanation, enabling students to quickly revise concepts such as knowledge, justification, ethical theories, and arguments for God’s existence.
掌握哲学术语是Year 13 CIE哲学考试成功的关键。本指南梳理了课程核心主题中的高频术语，配以清晰的英文定义与中文翻译，旨在巩固理解、促进记忆。每个术语都附有简明解释，帮助学生快速复习知识、辩护、伦理理论以及上帝存在论证等重要概念。
1. Epistemology: Knowledge and Justification | 认识论：知识与辩护
Epistemology investigates the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge. The tripartite definition and responses to scepticism are central to this area.
认识论探讨知识的本质、来源和限度。三元定义以及对怀疑论的回应是这一领域的核心。
Justified True Belief (JTB) holds that knowledge is belief that is both true and justified. A subject S knows a proposition p if and only if p is true, S believes that p, and S has adequate justification for p. This definition dominated mainstream epistemology until Gettier’s counterexamples.
辩护的真信念(JTB)主张知识是经过辩护的真信念。主体S知道命题p当且仅当p为真，S相信p，并且S对p有充分的辩护。这一在盖梯尔反例出现之前一直主导着主流认识论。
Gettier Problem refers to cases where a person has a justified true belief that intuitively does not count as knowledge. In a typical Gettier scenario, justification relies on a false lemma or luck, showing that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.
盖梯尔问题指这样一些情形：某人持有一个被辩护的真信念，但直觉上并不构成知识。在典型的盖梯尔情景中，辩护依赖于一个错误的前提或纯粹的运气，这表明JTB并非知识的充分条件。
Foundationalism vs Coherentism: Foundationalism claims that knowledge rests on basic, self-justifying beliefs (foundations) upon which all other beliefs are built. Coherentism rejects foundations, arguing that beliefs are justified by their coherence within a web of mutually supporting beliefs.
基础主义与融贯论：基础主义声称知识建立在基本的、自我辩护的信念（基础）之上，所有其他信念都由此构建。融贯论则否弃基础，主张信念通过在一个相互支持的信念网络中的融贯关系而获得辩护。
2. Perception: Theories of Reality | 感知：实在论诸理论
Philosophical theories of perception examine how we access reality through our senses. The debate between direct and indirect realism addresses whether we perceive the world immediately or through mental representations.
感知的哲学理论审视我们如何通过感官通达实在。直接实在论与间接实在论之间的争论探讨我们是直接感知世界，还是通过心理表征来感知。
Direct Realism is the view that we perceive physical objects directly, without any intermediary sense-data. According to this theory, what we are immediately aware of in perception are mind-independent objects and their properties. Illusions and hallucinations are often cited as challenges.
直接实在论认为我们直接感知物理对象，无需任何中介的感官材料。根据该理论，我们在感知中直接意识到的是独立于心灵的对象及其属性。幻觉与错觉常被援引为挑战。
Indirect Realism claims that we perceive physical objects indirectly via sense-data, which are mental representations caused by objects. The existence of sense-data explains perceptual variation and illusion, but it raises the issue of whether we can know the external world beyond our sense-data.
间接实在论声称我们通过感官材料间接地感知物理对象，感官材料是由对象引起的心理表征。感官材料的存在解释了感知的变异和错觉，但也引发了能否认识感官材料之外的外部世界的问题。
Idealism maintains that reality is fundamentally mental or dependent on minds. In Berkeley’s version, physical objects are collections of ideas perceived by finite minds and sustained by God, and nothing exists unperceived. This eliminates the need for an external material world.
观念论主张实在从根本上说是精神的或依赖于心灵的。在贝克莱的版本中，物理对象是由有限心灵感知、由上帝维持的观念的集合，凡未被感知者即不存在。这消解了对外部物质世界的需求。
3. Normative Ethics: Consequentialism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics | 规范伦理学：后果论、义务论与德性伦理学
Normative ethics provides frameworks for determining right and wrong action. Three major theories dominate the syllabus: utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics.
规范伦理学为判断对错行为提供框架。课程大纲涵盖了三大核心理论：功利主义、康德式义务论和德性伦理学。
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory asserting that the morality of an action depends solely on its outcomes. The right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility. Classical utilitarians like Bentham used a hedonic calculus, while Mill introduced qualitative distinctions in pleasures.
功利主义是一种后果论理论，主张行为的道德性仅取决于其结果。正确的行为是能最大化总体幸福或功用的行为。边沁等古典功利主义者使用快乐计算法，而密尔引入了快乐的质量区分。
Kantian Deontology holds that the rightness of actions is determined by duties and rational principles, not consequences. Kant’s categorical imperative requires that one act only according to maxims that can be consistently willed as universal laws and that one treat humanity always as an end, never merely as a means.
康德式义务论认为行为的正当性由义务和理性原则决定，而非后果。康德的定言命令要求只按照你同时愿意其成为普遍法则的准则行动，并始终将人当作目的，而绝不仅仅当作手段。
Virtue Ethics focuses on character rather than rules or consequences. Inspired by Aristotle, it holds that an action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. The central concepts are eudaimonia (flourishing) and the development of virtues such as courage, justice, and wisdom.
德性伦理学关注品性而非规则或后果。它受亚里士多德启发，认为如果某一行为是德性行为者在相关情境中会做的，则该行为是正确的。核心概念是eudaimonia（繁荣）以及勇气、正义、智慧等德性的培养。
4. Meta-Ethics: The Nature of Moral Language | 元伦理学：道德语言的本质
Meta-ethics analyses the meaning and metaphysical status of moral claims. It asks whether moral judgments express beliefs that can be true or false, and whether moral properties exist independently of human attitudes.
元伦理学分析道德主张的意义和形而上学地位。它追问道德判断是否表达了可真可假的信念，以及道德属性是否独立于人类态度而存在。
Cognitivism vs Non-cognitivism: Cognitivists claim that moral statements express beliefs and are truth-apt—they can be true or false. Non-cognitivists argue that moral utterances do not express beliefs but rather emotions, prescriptions, or attitudes, and are therefore not truth-apt.
认知主义与非认知主义：认知主义者声称道德陈述表达信念并且适真——它们可以为真或假。非认知主义者则认为道德话语不表达信念，而是表达情感、指令或态度，因此不适真。
Moral Realism vs Anti-Realism: Moral realists maintain that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of our beliefs or feelings. Anti-realists deny this: error theorists hold that all moral statements are systematically false, while relativists and non-cognitivists offer alternative accounts.
道德实在论与反实在论：道德实在论者主张存在客观的道德事实，它们独立于我们的信念或感受。反实在论者否认这点：错误论者认为所有道德陈述都是系统性的错误，而相对主义者和非认知主义者则提供替代解释。
Emotivism (Ayer, Stevenson) is a non-cognitivist theory stating that moral utterances are expressions of emotion or attempts to influence others’ attitudes. For example, saying ‘stealing is wrong’ is akin to saying ‘stealing—boo!’ and conveys disapproval.
情绪主义（艾耶尔、斯蒂文森）是一种非认知主义理论，认为道德话语是情感的表达或试图影响他人态度的行为。例如说“偷窃是错误的”类似于说“偷窃——呸！”，传达了不赞同的态度。
5. Philosophy of Religion: The Concept of God | 宗教哲学：上帝的概念
The classical theistic conception of God includes attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Philosophical analysis explores the coherence of these attributes and their logical implications, especially regarding the problem of evil.
古典有神论对上帝的构想包括全能、全知和全善等属性。哲学分析探究这些属性的一致性及其逻辑推论，尤其是涉及恶的问题时。
Omnipotence is typically defined as the ability to do anything that is logically possible. Paradoxes such as the stone paradox (can God create a stone too heavy for God to lift?) test whether omnipotence is a coherent concept. Responses often restrict omnipotence to doing only what is logically consistent.
全能通常被界定为能够做任何逻辑上可能之事的属性。巨石悖论（上帝能否创造一块重到他自己也举不起来的石头？）等悖谬检验全能概念是否一致。常见的回应将全能限定为仅能做逻辑上一致之事。
Omniscience and Free Will: If God knows the future infallibly, including all human choices, it seems that those choices could not be otherwise, which raises a challenge to human free will. Compatibilist accounts suggest that knowledge of a future action does not cause it, preserving freedom.
全知与自由意志：如果上帝无误地预知未来，包括所有人的选择，那么这些选择似乎就不可能是别样的，这构成了对人类自由意志的挑战。相容论的解释认为，对某一未来行动的知识并不导致该行动，从而保留了自由。
The Problem of Evil confronts the theist with the apparent inconsistency between God’s omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and the existence of evil. The logical problem claims that an all-loving, all-powerful God would prevent all evil; the evidential problem points to the amount and distribution of evil as strong evidence against God’s existence.
恶的问题让有神论者面对上帝的全善、全能与恶的存在之间明显的不一致性。逻辑恶的问题声称，全爱且全能的上帝会阻止一切恶；证据恶的问题则指出恶的数量与分布是反对上帝存在的有力证据。
6. Philosophy of Religion: Arguments for God’s Existence | 宗教哲学：上帝存在的论证
A priori and a posteriori arguments for God’s existence are staple topics. The ontological argument attempts to deduce God’s existence from the very concept of God, while cosmological and teleological arguments draw on experience of the world.
先验与后验的上帝存在论证是常考主题。本体论论证力图从上帝的概念本身推出其存在，而宇宙论和目的论论证则诉诸对世界的经验。
Ontological Argument (Anselm, Descartes) defines God as a being than which no greater can be conceived, or as a supremely perfect being, and argues that existence is a necessary part of such a concept. Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ and Kant’s critique that existence is not a predicate are prominent objections.
本体论论证（安瑟伦、笛卡尔）将上帝定义为无与伦比的伟大存在或最完满的存在，并主张存在乃是此概念的必要组成部分。高尼罗的“完美海岛”以及康德“存在不是谓词”的批判是著名反驳。
Cosmological Argument (Aquinas, Leibniz) begins from the existence of the universe or contingent beings and argues for a necessary first cause or sufficient reason. Aquinas’s first three Ways include the argument from motion, causation, and contingency. The argument faces challenges such as the possibility of an infinite regress and the question of what caused God.
宇宙论论证（阿奎那、莱布尼茨）从宇宙或偶然存在物的存在出发，论证一个必然的第一因或充分理由。阿奎那前三路包括运动论证、因果论证和偶然性论证。该论证面临的挑战包括无限回溯的可能性以及“谁造成了上帝”的质疑。
Teleological Argument (Paley, Swinburne) points to apparent design and purpose in nature, arguing by analogy that the universe resembles a designed artefact and therefore requires an intelligent designer. Hume’s criticisms via Philo highlight the weakness of analogical reasoning and the problem of evil, while Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a naturalistic alternative.
目的论论证（佩利、斯温伯恩）指出自然界中显现的设计与目的，通过类比论证宇宙类似一件设计品，因而需要一位理智的设计者。休谟借斐罗之口提出的批评揭示了类比推理的弱点和恶的问题，而达尔文的进化论则提供了一种自然主义的替代解释。
7. Philosophy of Mind: Dualism and Physicalism | 心灵哲学：二元论与物理主义
The mind-body problem explores the relationship between mental states and physical states. Substance dualism defends the separation of mind and body, while physicalist theories reduce or identify mental phenomena with physical processes.
心身问题探讨心理状态与物理状态之间的关系。实体二元论捍卫心灵与身体的分离，而物理主义理论则将心理现象还原为或等同于物理过程。
Substance Dualism (Descartes) claims that the mind is a non-physical substance distinct from the body, capable of independent existence. The ‘conceivability argument’ (I can conceive of myself existing without a body) and the ‘divisibility argument’ are classic supports. The interaction problem—how an immaterial mind can affect a material body—is a major difficulty.
实体二元论（笛卡尔）主张心灵是一种与身体不同的非物理实体，能够独立存在。“可设想性论证”（我能设想自己没有身体而存在）和“可分性论证”是经典支撑。互动难题——非物质的心灵如何影响物质的身体——是一大困难。
Logical Behaviourism (Ryle, Hempel) analyses mental states in terms of observable behavioural dispositions, rejecting the ‘ghost in the machine’. For the behaviourist, to believe that it is raining is to be disposed to utter certain sentences, carry an umbrella, and so on. It faces difficulties with mental states that lack outward expression and with the ‘perfect actor’ objection.
逻辑行为主义（赖尔、亨普尔）用可观察的行为倾向来分析心理状态，拒斥“机器中的幽灵”。对行为主义者而言，相信下雨就是倾向于说出某些话语、携带伞具等行为。该理论面对缺乏外在表达的心理状态以及“完美演员”反驳的困难。
Functionalism defines mental states by their causal roles—the relations between sensory inputs, other mental states, and behavioural outputs. A mental state is like a software state that can be realised in different hardware (multiple realizability). This allows mental properties to be dependent on but not identical to physical properties, preserving a form of non-reductive physicalism.
功能主义用因果角色来定义心理状态——即感觉输入、其他心理状态和行为输出之间的关系。心理状态如同一种软件状态，可在不同硬件上实现（多重可实现性）。这使得心理属性依赖于但不等于物理属性，从而保留一种非还原的物理主义形式。
8. Free Will and Determinism: Key Positions | 自由意志与决定论：核心立场
The free will debate concerns whether human actions are determined by prior causes and whether moral responsibility requires the ability to do otherwise. Three classic positions structure the discussion.
自由意志的争论涉及人类行为是否被先在原因所决定，以及道德责任是否需要能够另行选择的能力。三种经典立场构成了讨论框架。
Hard Determinism maintains that all events, including human actions, are necessitated by prior causes. If determinism is true, then no one acts freely or is morally responsible in a libertarian sense. Hard determinists often adopt a sceptical or revisionary stance toward concepts of blame and punishment.
硬决定论主张所有事件，包括人类行为，都被先在原因所必然化。如果决定论为真，那么没有人是自由行动的，也没有人在意志自由论的意义上负有道德责任。硬决定论者通常对责备和惩罚观念持怀疑或修正立场。
Libertarianism (Free Will) asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism and that humans do possess contra-causal free will. Agent-causal theories claim that agents themselves are the uncaused causes of their actions, while event-causal libertarianism defends indeterministic processes within the agent that enable genuine choice.
意志自由论主张自由意志与决定论不相容，并且人类确实拥有逆因果的自由意志。行动者因果理论声称行动者自身是其行为的无因之因，而事件因果意志自由论则捍卫行动者内部能使真实选择成为可能的不确定过程。
Compatibilism (Soft Determinism) contends that free will and determinism are compatible. A free action is one caused by the agent’s own desires and motivations without external coercion, even if those desires are themselves determined. Classical compatibilists like Hume argued that liberty is simply the power to act according to one’s will, which is consistent with determinism.
相容论（软决定论）主张自由意志与决定论相容。一个自由的行为是由行动者自身的欲望和动机所引起且未受外力强制的行为，即使这些欲望本身是被决定的。休谟等古典相容论者认为，自由仅仅是按照自己意志行动的能力，这与决定论一致。
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