📚 IGCSE Cambridge Philosophy: Key Terms Quick Memory Guide | IGCSE剑桥哲学：核心术语速记指南
Mastering philosophical terminology is half the battle in IGCSE Cambridge Philosophy. This revision guide presents essential terms from epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and ethics, each paired with a practical memory trick. By linking abstract concepts to everyday images, word origins, or contrasting pairs, you can recall definitions faster and apply them confidently in exam answers.
掌握哲学术语是IGCSE剑桥哲学考试成功的一半。这份复习指南精选了认识论、形而上学、宗教哲学和伦理学中的核心词汇，并为每个术语配上了实用的记忆技巧。通过把抽象概念与日常图像、词源或对比配对联系起来，你能够更快地回忆定义，并在答题中自信地运用它们。
1. A Priori vs. A Posteriori Knowledge | 先验知识与后验知识
A priori knowledge is justified independently of sense experience — for example, ‘all bachelors are unmarried’. A posteriori knowledge depends on sensory observation, such as ‘the sky is blue’.
先验知识的成立不依赖感官经验，例如“所有单身汉都未婚”。后验知识则取决于感官观察，如“天空是蓝色的”。
Memory trick: ‘Prior’ comes before experience, so think of a priori as ‘before’ (prior) to looking. A posteriori sounds like ‘post’ — after you look. Picture a detective solving a case: a priori reasoning is the detective deducing before looking at evidence; a posteriori is gathering clues after inspecting the scene.
记忆技巧：“Prior”表示在之前，所以把先验想像成在观察“之前”就知道。后验（a posteriori）听起来像“post”（之后）——在你观察之后。想象一位侦探破案：先验推理是侦探在查看证据之前就进行推导；后验则是勘查现场后收集线索。
2. Analytic vs. Synthetic Statements | 分析陈述与综合陈述
An analytic statement is true purely by virtue of the meanings of the words; denying it leads to a contradiction. Example: ‘A triangle has three sides.’ A synthetic statement is true or false depending on how the world is; its denial is not a contradiction. Example: ‘The cat is on the mat.’
分析陈述的真值完全取决于词语本身的含义，否定它会导致矛盾，例如“三角形有三条边”。综合陈述的真假取决于世界的实际情况，否定它不会产生矛盾，例如“猫在垫子上”。
Memory trick: Think ‘analytic = analysing the definition’. Just by analysing the words you see the truth. ‘Synthetic’ sounds like ‘synthesis’ — you need to synthesise information from the outside world. Imagine analytic as a lock that opens only with its key (definition); synthetic as a doorbell that needs someone to press it (experience).
记忆技巧：把“分析”想成“分析定义”——仅仅通过分析词语就能看出其真。综合（synthetic）听起来像“合成”——你需要把外部世界的信息合成进来。把分析陈述想象成一把只能用其钥匙（定义）打开的锁；综合陈述则像一个需要有人去按的门铃（需要经验）。
3. Necessary vs. Contingent Truths | 必然真理与偶然真理
A necessary truth could not have been false in any possible world; for instance, 2 + 2 = 4. A contingent truth happens to be true but could have been otherwise; for example, ‘London is the capital of the UK’.
必然真理在所有可能世界中都不可能为假，比如2+2=4。偶然真理恰好为真，但原本可以是另外的样子，例如“伦敦是英国的首都”。
Memory trick: Link ‘necessary’ to ‘no escape’ — it MUST be true. ‘Contingent’ sounds like ‘contact’ — it depends on what contacts (circumstances) you find. Visualise necessary as a solid rock that never changes shape, and contingent as a cloud that could drift into any form.
记忆技巧：把“必然”与“无处可逃”联系起来——它必定为真。“偶然（contingent）”听起来像“接触（contact）”——它取决于你遇到什么情况。把必然想象成一块永不变形的坚石，而偶然就像一朵可能飘成任何形状的云。
4. Deductive vs. Inductive Arguments | 演绎论证与归纳论证
Deductive arguments aim to guarantee the conclusion if the premises are true. Example: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal. Inductive arguments aim to make the conclusion probable based on evidence. Example: The sun has risen every day; therefore it will rise tomorrow.
演绎论证旨在保证：如果前提为真，结论必然为真。例如：所有人都会死；苏格拉底是人；所以苏格拉底会死。归纳论证旨在基于证据使结论很可能成立。例如：太阳每天升起；因此明天太阳还会升起。
Memory trick: Deductive = ‘dead certain’ — the conclusion is locked in. Inductive = ‘involving a leap’ — you jump from observed cases to a general rule. Think of deductive as a perfectly sealed pipeline where water cannot leak; inductive as a weather forecast: very likely, but never 100%.
记忆技巧：演绎（deductive）——“dead certain（绝对确定）”，结论被锁死。归纳（inductive）——“involving a leap（涉及跳跃）”，你从观察到的案例跳到一个普遍规则。把演绎想象成一条完全密封的管道，水不会泄漏；归纳就像天气预报：很可能是对的，但绝不可能是百分之百。
5. Validity and Soundness | 有效性与可靠性
In deductive logic, an argument is valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises — the structure works even if premises are false. It is sound if it is valid and all its premises are actually true.
在演绎逻辑中，如果一个论证的结论能从前提中逻辑地推出，它就是有效的——即使前提为假，结构依然成立。如果该论证有效并且所有前提实际上都为真，那么它就是可靠的。
Memory trick: ‘Valid’ is about the shape of the argument; ‘sound’ is about the shape and the truth of starting points. Imagine a valid argument as a well-built bridge that could lead nowhere if the starting bank is missing; a sound argument is a bridge with solid ground on both ends.
记忆技巧：“有效”关乎论证的形式；“可靠”关乎形式和起点的真实性。把一个有效论证想象成一座建造精良的桥，但如果起始河岸缺失，它也到不了任何地方；一个可靠论证则是两端都有坚实地面的大桥。
6. The Ontological Argument | 本体论论证
The Ontological Argument claims that God’s existence can be proved a priori from the very definition of God as ‘the greatest conceivable being’ (Anselm) or as a necessary being (Descartes, Plantinga). If we can conceive of such a being, it must exist in reality, because existence in reality is greater than existence only in the mind.
本体论论证声称上帝的存在可以从“可设想的最伟大存在”（安瑟伦）或“必然存在”（笛卡尔、普兰丁格）这一定义出发，先验地得到证明。如果我们能设想这样一个存在，它就必须存在于现实中，因为存在于现实比仅存在于心灵中更伟大。
Memory trick: ‘Ontological’ sounds like ‘on-to-logical’ — using pure logic to step ‘onto’ the conclusion that God exists. Picture a mental escalator: start with the idea of the greatest imaginable being, and the logic lifts you unavoidably to the claim that this being exists. Remember Gaunilo’s island objection — it helps clarify why many reject the argument.
记忆技巧：“本体论（ontological）”听起来像“on-to-logical”——运用纯逻辑“踏上”上帝存在的结论。想象一条思想自动扶梯：从可想象的最伟大存在的概念开始，逻辑不可避免地把你推向该存在真实存在的结论。记住高尼罗的岛屿反驳——它有助于理解为什么很多人不接受这个论证。
7. The Cosmological Argument | 宇宙论论证
The Cosmological Argument infers God as the first cause or necessary foundation of the universe. Aquinas’s ‘Five Ways’ include the argument from motion (a first unmoved mover) and from contingency (a necessary being). The Kalam version argues that everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore it has a cause — God.
宇宙论论证推断上帝是宇宙的第一因或必然基础。阿奎那的“五路证明”包括从运动出发的论证（第一推动者）和从偶然性出发的论证（一个必然存在）。卡拉姆版本主张：一切开始存在的事物都有原因；宇宙开始存在；因此宇宙有原因——即上帝。
Memory trick: ‘Cosmos’ = universe, ‘logical’ = reasoned. Think of a row of dominoes falling; to avoid an infinite regress, there must be a first domino that was not pushed by another — the unmoved mover. Visualise a child asking ‘why?’ repeatedly until you must reach an ‘uncaused cause’ to stop the chain.
记忆技巧：“宇宙（cosmos）”+“逻辑（logical）”。想象一排倒下的多米诺骨牌；为了避免无限回溯，必须有一块不是被其他骨牌推倒的第一块骨牌——这就是不被推动的推动者。想象一个孩子不停地问“为什么”，直到你不得不抵达一个“无因之因”来终止追问的链条。
8. The Teleological Argument (Design Argument) | 目的论论证（设计论证）
The Teleological Argument points to apparent design, order, and purpose in nature as evidence for an intelligent designer. Paley’s watchmaker analogy suggests that just as a watch implies a watchmaker, the complexity of living organisms implies a divine designer. Hume and later Darwin challenged this by offering alternative explanations.
目的论论证以自然界中显见的设计、秩序和目的作为智慧设计者的证据。佩利的钟表匠类比指出，正如钟表意味着钟表匠，生物体的复杂性也意味着一位神圣的设计者。休谟和后来的达尔文对这一论证提出了替代解释的挑战。
Memory trick: ‘Teleo-‘ comes from Greek ‘telos’, meaning end or purpose. Imagine finding a smartphone on a beach — you instantly recognise design, not chance. This is the intuitive pull of the design argument. Remember the mnemonic ‘Purpose Points to a Purposer’.
记忆技巧：“Teleo-”源自希腊语“telos”，意为目的或终点。想象在海滩上发现一部智能手机——你立刻会意识到那是设计出来的，而非随机形成。这就是设计论证的直观吸引力。记住“目的指向目的者”这个口诀。
9. The Problem of Evil | 恶的问题
The logical problem of evil argues that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God cannot coexist with the existence of evil. If God is able and willing to prevent evil, why does evil exist? The evidential problem focuses on the sheer amount and distribution of suffering as strong evidence against such a God.
恶的逻辑问题主张，全能、全知、全善的上帝不可能与恶的存在相容。如果上帝有能力也有意愿阻止恶，为什么恶还会存在？恶的证据问题则聚焦于苦难的巨大数量和分布，作为反对这样一个上帝的有力证据。
Memory trick: Use the ‘inconsistent triad’: Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Evil cannot all be true. Picture a triangle with these three corners — it collapses because evil contradicts the other two. J.L. Mackie’s formulation is the classic reference point. Remember ‘Epicurus’s old questions’ — if God is willing but not able, He is not omnipotent; if able but not willing, He is malevolent.
记忆技巧：运用“不一致三角”：全能、全善和恶不可能同时为真。想象一个三角形，三个角分别是这三者——它因为恶与其他两者矛盾而崩塌。J.L.麦基的表述是经典的参考点。记住“伊壁鸠鲁的古老质问”：如果上帝愿意但不能阻止恶，祂就不是全能的；如果能但不愿，祂就不是全善的。
10. Free Will Defence and Soul-Making Theodicy | 自由意志辩护与灵魂锻造神正论
The free will defence (Plantinga) argues that moral evil results from the misuse of free will, which is a greater good that an omnipotent God cannot grant without the possibility of evil. The soul-making theodicy (Irenaeus, Hick) sees suffering as necessary for spiritual growth and the development of virtues like courage and compassion.
自由意志辩护（普兰丁格）主张，道德上的恶来源于自由意志的滥用，而自由意志是一种更大的善，全能上帝在赋予自由意志的同时无法消除恶的可能性。灵魂锻造神正论（爱任纽、希克）认为，苦难对于灵性成长以及勇气、同情等美德的发展是必要的。
Memory trick: For free will, think of a parent who allows a child to make mistakes so they learn genuine goodness, not robotic obedience. For soul-making, picture a gym: without resistance (suffering), muscles (virtues) cannot develop. Link Hick with ‘honing a diamond’ — pressure creates beauty.
记忆技巧：对于自由意志，想想一位允许孩子犯错的家长，这样孩子才能学到真正的善，而不是机械服从。对于灵魂锻造，想象一个健身房：没有阻力（苦难），肌肉（美德）就无法发展。把希克与“打磨钻石”联系起来——压力创造美丽。
11. Coherence vs. Correspondence Theory of Truth | 真理的融贯论与符合论
The correspondence theory holds that a belief is true if it matches or corresponds to reality — ‘the cat is on the mat’ is true if and only if the cat is indeed on the mat. The coherence theory says a belief is true if it fits consistently within a system of beliefs, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting together.
符合论认为，一个信念如果与实在相符合，就是真的——比如“猫在垫子上”为真，当且仅当猫确实在垫子上。融贯论则说，一个信念如果在一个信念系统中与其他信念融贯一致，就是真的，就像拼图块相互咬合一样。
Memory trick: Correspondence = ‘copy’ — a true statement copies the world. Coherence = ‘cohesion’ — all the pieces stick together without contradiction. Imagine correspondence as a photograph matching the person; coherence as a harmonious orchestra where every instrument plays in tune with the whole.
记忆技巧：符合（correspondence）——“复印”，一个真陈述复制了世界。融贯（coherence）——“凝聚”，所有碎片无矛盾地粘合在一起。把符合论想象成一张照片与本人相符；把融贯论想象成一个和谐的交响乐团，每一种乐器都与整体调性一致。
12. Utility Principle and Categorical Imperative | 功利原则与绝对命令
The principle of utility (Bentham, Mill) commands us to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Actions are right if they maximise overall pleasure or well-being. Kant’s categorical imperative, by contrast, demands that we act only according to maxims that we can will to become universal laws, treating humanity never merely as a means to an end.
功利原则（边沁、密尔）要求我们为最大多数人创造最大幸福。一种行动如果能最大化整体的快乐或福祉，就是正确的。相反，康德的绝对命令要求我们只按照你愿意它成为普遍法则的准则去行动，永远不把人仅仅当作手段。
Memory trick: For Utilitarianism, think ‘U = You tally happiness’ — imagine a happiness calculator. For the categorical imperative, think ‘Categorical = no categories of exceptions’ — the rule must be applied to everyone equally. Picture a universal remote control: pressing ‘universalise’ on your action — if it leads to a contradiction (like lying making trust impossible), it’s not permitted.
记忆技巧：对于功利主义，想想“U = You tally happiness（你清点幸福）”——想象一台幸福计算器。对于绝对命令，想想“绝对（categorical）= 没有例外类别”——规则必须平等适用于每个人。想象一个万能遥控器：按下“普遍化”按钮检验你的行为——如果导致矛盾（比如撒谎让信任变得不可能），那它就不是被允许的。
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