📚 AS AQA Philosophy: Core Concepts Overview | AS AQA 哲学核心知识点梳理
The AS AQA Philosophy specification covers foundational topics in epistemology, moral philosophy and philosophy of religion. This revision guide provides a concise overview of the core knowledge points you need to master, including key definitions, arguments and thinkers. Each section presents essential ideas in both English and Chinese to support bilingual learning and exam preparation.
AS AQA 哲学课程涵盖认识论、道德哲学和宗教哲学等基础领域。本文梳理了必须掌握的核心知识点，包括关键定义、论证和思想家。每个小节以中英双语呈现核心思想，助力双语学习和备考。
1. Knowledge and the Tripartite Definition | 知识与三元定义
In traditional epistemology, knowledge is defined as justified true belief (JTB). According to this analysis, a subject S knows that a proposition p is true if and only if: (i) p is true; (ii) S believes that p; and (iii) S is justified in believing p. This tripartite account traces back to Plato’s Theaetetus.
在传统认识论中，知识被定义为被证成的真信念（JTB）。根据这一分析，主体S知道命题p为真，当且仅当：(i) p为真；(ii) S相信p；且(iii) S有理由相信p。这一三元定义可追溯至柏拉图的《泰阿泰德篇》。
However, Edmund Gettier in his 1963 paper challenged the JTB definition by presenting cases where someone has a justified true belief but intuitively lacks knowledge. In a typical Gettier case, the justification is based on a false premise or relies on luck. This prompted philosophers to seek a fourth condition or to revise the account of justification entirely.
然而，埃德蒙·葛梯尔在1963年的论文中挑战了JTB定义，他提出了一个人拥有被证成的真信念但直观上缺乏知识的案例。在典型的葛梯尔案例中，证成基于错误的前提或依赖运气。这促使哲学家们寻求第四种条件或彻底修正证成的解释。
2. Direct Realism and Indirect Realism | 直接实在论与间接实在论
Direct realism claims that we perceive physical objects directly and immediately. When you look at a tree, you are directly aware of the tree itself. Indirect realism, by contrast, holds that we perceive objects indirectly via sense-data or representations. Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities supports indirect realism: primary qualities (shape, size) resemble objects, while secondary qualities (colour, taste) are mind-dependent.
直接实在论主张我们直接而即时地感知物理对象。当你看到一棵树时，你直接意识到的就是树本身。间接实在论则认为我们通过感觉材料或表象间接感知对象。洛克对第一性质和第二性质的区分支持间接实在论：第一性质（形状、大小）与对象相似，而第二性质（颜色、味道）依赖于心灵。
Indirect realism faces the ‘veil of perception’ problem: if we only ever access sense-data, how can we know that physical objects exist or what they are like? This leads to scepticism about the external world.
间接实在论面临”知觉之幕”问题：如果我们只能通达感觉材料，我们又如何能知道物理对象存在或它们的性质？这会导致关于外部世界的怀疑论。
3. Idealism and Berkeley’s Criticism | 唯心主义与贝克莱的批评
Idealism, particularly as defended by Berkeley, denies the existence of mind-independent physical objects. Berkeley argued that to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi), and that objects are nothing but collections of ideas. He rejected Locke’s primary/secondary quality distinction, claiming that all qualities are mind-dependent.
唯心主义，尤其是贝克莱所捍卫的唯心主义，否认独立于心灵之外的物理对象的存在。贝克莱主张存在即被感知（esse est percipi），对象不过是观念的集合。他拒斥洛克的第一/第二性质区分，主张所有性质都依赖于心灵。
Berkeley’s master argument states that it is impossible to conceive of an object existing unperceived, because in the very act of conceiving it you are perceiving it in your mind. Critics claim this confuses the psychological act with the logical possibility.
贝克莱的”主论证”指出，无法设想一个未被感知的对象存在，因为在设想它的过程中，你已经在心灵中感知了它。批评者认为这混淆了心理行为与逻辑可能性。
4. Rationalism, Empiricism and A Priori Knowledge | 理性主义、经验主义与先天知识
Rationalism holds that some substantive knowledge is innate and can be accessed through reason alone (a priori). Key empiricists such as Locke and Hume argue that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth, and all knowledge derives from sensory experience (a posteriori). The debate centres on whether there are synthetic a priori truths.
理性主义认为某些实质知识是天赋的，可以通过纯粹理性获得（先天知识）。关键的经验主义者如洛克和休谟主张心灵在出生时是一块白板，所有知识都源于感官经验（后天知识）。争论的核心在于是否存在先天综合真理。
Descartes offered his trademark argument for innate ideas: the idea of God as an infinite perfect being could not have come from experience. Hume challenged causality, arguing we cannot know a priori that one event causes another; we only observe constant conjunction.
笛卡尔为天赋观念提供了他的”商标论证”：上帝的无限完满观念不可能来自经验。休谟挑战了因果性，认为我们无法先天知道一事件引起另一事件；我们只观察到恒常联结。
5. Cartesian Scepticism and Responses | 笛卡尔式怀疑论与回应
Descartes employed the method of doubt to find indubitable foundations for knowledge. He considered the possibility of a deceiving demon that makes him doubt even mathematical truths. He famously concluded ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ – I think, therefore I am – as something that cannot be doubted.
笛卡尔运用怀疑方法寻找不可怀疑的知识基础。他考虑了一个欺骗性的恶魔使他甚至怀疑数学真理的可能性。他得出著名结论”我思故我在”——这是不可怀疑的。
Responses to scepticism include Moore’s common-sense philosophy, where one simply holds up one’s hands and says here is one hand, claiming more certainty in the existence of external objects than in any sceptical hypothesis. Another response is the reliabilist approach, claiming that if our cognitive faculties are generally reliable, we can have knowledge without needing to defeat the sceptic.
对怀疑论的回应包括摩尔的常识哲学，他举起双手说”这是一只手”，声称对外部对象存在的确定性高于任何怀疑假设。另一种回应是可靠主义进路，主张如果我们的认知官能总体上可靠，我们就能拥有知识，无需击败怀疑论者。
6. Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill | 功利主义：边沁与密尔
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that the right action is the one that maximises utility, defined as pleasure or happiness. Jeremy Bentham developed act utilitarianism, applying the hedonic calculus to quantify pleasure based on intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. John Stuart Mill modified this by distinguishing higher and lower pleasures, arguing that intellectual pleasures are superior.
功利主义是一种后果论伦理学，认为正当的行为是最大化功利的行为，功利被定义为快乐或幸福。边沁发展了行为功利主义，运用快乐计算法根据强度、持续时间、确定性、远近、丰饶性、纯度和范围来量化快乐。密尔修改了这一点，区分了高级快乐和低级快乐，主张理智的快乐更为优越。
Utilitarianism faces criticisms such as the demandingness objection (it requires too much self-sacrifice), the problem of justice (it could justify punishing the innocent if it maximises happiness), and the difficulty of calculating consequences. Rule utilitarianism was developed to address some issues, holding that we should follow rules that generally promote happiness.
功利主义面临若干批评，如要求过高的反对意见（要求过多的自我牺牲）、正义问题（如果惩罚无辜能最大化幸福，它可为此辩护）以及计算后果的困难。规则功利主义被发展出来以应对某些问题，主张我们应遵循通常能增进幸福的规则。
7. Kantian Ethics: The Categorical Imperative | 康德伦理学：绝对命令
Kant’s deontological ethics holds that the moral worth of an action lies in its being done from duty, not from inclination or consequences. The categorical imperative is the supreme principle of morality: act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Kant offers two main formulations: the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity (treating persons as ends in themselves, never merely as means).
康德的义务论伦理学认为，行为的道德价值在于出于义务而行动，而非出于爱好或后果。绝对命令是道德的最高原则：只按照你同时愿意它成为普遍法则的准则去行动。康德提供了两个主要表述：普遍法则公式和人性公式（始终把人视为目的本身，而不仅仅是手段）。
Kant argues that moral duties are categorical, not hypothetical, and are binding on all rational beings. Criticisms include the problem of conflicting duties (if two maxims cannot both be universalised, which duty prevails?), and the objection that Kantian ethics is too rigid and ignores the importance of emotions and consequences.
康德主张道德义务是定言的，而非假言的，且对所有理性存在者具有约束力。批评包括义务冲突问题（如果两个准则无法同时普遍化，哪个义务优先？），以及康德伦理学过于严格、忽视情感和后果重要性的反对意见。
8. Virtue
Published by TutorHao | AS 哲学 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