A-Level AQA Philosophy: Formula & Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | A-Level AQA 哲学：公式定理速查手册

📚 A-Level AQA Philosophy: Formula & Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | A-Level AQA 哲学：公式定理速查手册

In A-Level Philosophy, we trade mathematical symbols for logical operators and conceptual precision. While you won’t find algebra, you will find a rigorous architecture of definitions, premises, and conclusions. This handbook reframes the core arguments of the AQA syllabus as ‘formulae’ and ‘theorems’ — a quick-reference toolkit to help you analyse, evaluate, and construct philosophical arguments under timed conditions. Each entry presents a standard argument form, its structural logic, and the key objections you must master.

在 A-Level 哲学中，我们用逻辑运算符和概念的精确性取代了数学符号。虽然你找不到代数，但你会发现由定义、前提和结论构成的严谨架构。这本手册将 AQA 考纲的核心论证重新构建为“公式”和“定理”——一个快速参考工具包，帮助你在限时条件下分析、评估并构建哲学论证。每一条目都呈现了一个标准论证形式、其结构逻辑，以及你必须掌握的关键反驳。

1. The JTB Formula: Defining Knowledge | JTB 公式：定义知识

Knowledge is classically defined as Justified True Belief. The formula for a subject S knowing a proposition P is: S knows that P if and only if (i) P is true, (ii) S believes that P, and (iii) S is justified in believing that P. This tripartite condition sets the standard for propositional knowledge in epistemology.

知识通常被定义为得到辩护的真信念。一个主体 S 知道命题 P 的公式是：S 知道 P，当且仅当 (i) P 为真，(ii) S 相信 P，并且 (iii) S 在相信 P 上得到了辩护。这一三元条件为认识论中的命题知识设立了标准。

Necessary condition: If S knows P → JTB is satisfied. 必要条件：如果 S 知道 P → JTB 得到满足。
Sufficient condition (challenged): If JTB is satisfied → S knows P. 充分条件（遭挑战）：如果 JTB 得到满足 → S 知道 P。

Gettier Counter-Formula: A belief can be justified, true, yet still fail to be knowledge because of epistemic luck. In Gettier cases, the justification is disconnected from the truthmaker. Smith believes ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’ — justified by the boss’s statement, true because Smith himself (unbeknownst to him) gets the job and has ten coins. Belief is JTB, yet not knowledge.

盖梯尔反例公式：一个信念可以得到辩护、为真，却因认知运气而依然不构成知识。在盖梯尔案例中，辩护与使其为真的事实依据脱节。史密斯相信“得到这份工作的人口袋里有十枚硬币”——基于老板的话得到了辩护，该信念为真是因为史密斯本人（他未知情）得到了工作且口袋里有十枚硬币。该信念是 JTB，却不是知识。

2. The No False Lemmas Patch: JTB+N | 无假前提补丁：JTB+N

The No False Lemmas condition adds a fourth element to the JTB structure: S knows that P iff JTB + S’s belief is not inferred from any false proposition. This blocks Gettier-style cases where a justified belief rests on a false intermediate step (a false lemma). However, it fails to block cases where the belief is not inferred at all, such as perceptual Gettier cases where one sees a convincing fake barn in a landscape full of real barns.

无假前提条件为 JTB 结构增加了第四个要素：S 知道 P，当且仅当 JTB + S 的信念并非从任何假命题推论得出。这堵住了信念建立在虚假中间步骤（假前提）上的盖梯尔式案例。然而，它无法堵住信念根本不是推论得出的情况，例如知觉盖梯尔案例——在满是真谷仓的乡村景观中看见一座逼真的假谷仓。

Barn County Theorem: In Goldman’s Barn County, Henry sees a real barn under normal perceptual conditions, forming a justified true belief. Yet, he fails to know it is a barn because he could easily have looked at a fake barn facade and formed the same belief. The belief is safe only if it could not easily have been false.

谷仓郡定理：在戈德曼的谷仓郡中，亨利在正常知觉条件下看见一座真谷仓，形成了得到辩护的真信念。但他并不知道那是一座谷仓，因为他本来很可能看见一座假谷仓表皮并形成同样信念。一个信念只有在其不容易出错的情况下才是安全的。

3. Reliabilism: The Process Formula | 可靠主义：过程公式

S knows that P iff S’s true belief that P is produced by a reliable cognitive process. A process is reliable if it tends to produce a high ratio of true beliefs over false ones. Reliabilism replaces internal justification with external, causal reliability. The formula encodes an externalist condition: the subject need not be aware of the reliability of the process.

S 知道 P，当且仅当 S 关于 P 的真信念由一个可靠的认知过程产生。一个过程是可靠的，如果它往往产生高比例的真信念而非假信念。可靠主义用外在的因果可靠性取代了内在辩护。该公式编码了一个外在主义条件：主体无需意识到过程的可靠性。

Strength: Handles many Gettier cases because an unreliable process (e.g., guess, fake barn perception) does not yield knowledge, even if true. 优势：可处理许多盖梯尔案例，因为不可靠的过程（如猜测、对假谷仓的知觉）即使产生真信念也不构成知识。
Objection — Clairvoyant Norman: Norman has a perfectly reliable clairvoyant faculty, yet he has no reason to believe it is reliable. Intuitively, his belief is not knowledge because it lacks internal rational justification. This challenges the sufficiency of mere external reliability. 反驳——千里眼诺曼：诺曼拥有完全可靠的千里眼能力，但他没有理由相信它是可靠的。直觉上，他的信念不构成知识，因为它缺乏内在的理性辩护。这对纯粹外在可靠性的充分性提出了挑战。

4. Virtue Epistemology: The Agent Formula | 德性知识论：主体公式

S knows that P iff S’s true belief is creditable to S’s intellectual virtue or competence. The truth must be achieved because of the agent’s cognitive ability, not by luck or external manipulation. This formula shifts the evaluative focus from belief-properties to agent-properties, subsuming reliability under the rubric of epistemic character.

S 知道 P，当且仅当 S 的真信念可归功于 S 的理智德性或能力。真理必须是因为主体的认知能力而获得，而非运气或外在操控。该公式将评价焦点从信念的属性转向了主体的属性，将可靠性纳入认知品格的范围。

Achievement Theorem: Knowledge is a cognitive achievement — a success through ability. In a standard barn case, Henry’s belief is true but not because of his cognitive ability (since his perceptual ability would have equally produced false beliefs if he had looked at fakes). The success is not due to competence, hence not knowledge.

成就定理：知识是一种认知成就——通过能力获得的成功。在标准谷仓案例中，亨利的信念为真，却不是因为他自身的认知能力（因为他如果看了假谷仓，感知能力同样会产出假信念）。成功并非源于能力，因此不是知识。

5. The Utility Calculus: Act Utilitarianism | 功利计算：行动功利主义

The right action is the one that maximises total utility — the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham’s hedonistic formula uses a Felicific Calculus of pleasure and pain across seven dimensions: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. An action A is obligatory iff A produces the highest net sum of pleasure minus pain among all available alternatives.

正确的行动是最大化总体功利——最大多数人的最大幸福——的行动。边沁的享乐主义公式使用了一项涵盖七个维度的苦乐计算：强度、持续时间、确定性、远近、生育力、纯度和范围。一个行动 A 是义务性的，当且仅当 A 在所有可行选项中产生最高的快乐减痛苦净总和。

Utility Maximisation Theorem: The moral value of an action derives solely from its consequences — the balance of pleasure over pain it brings about. No action is intrinsically right or wrong; all depends on the contextual outcome. This implies impartiality: each person’s pleasure counts equally, like a single vote in a ledger.

功利最大化定理：一个行动的道德价值完全来自其后果——它带来的快乐超过痛苦的余额。没有任何行动在本质上是正确或错误的；一切都取决于具体情境的结果。这隐含了公平性：每个人的快乐都同等地计算，就像账本上的一票。

6. The Higher-Lower Pleasure Distinction: Mill’s Calculus | 高低快乐之分：密尔的计算

Mill reformulates the utility formula qualitatively. Pleasures are not merely quantitative; intellectual and moral pleasures are of a higher quality than mere bodily pleasures. The competent-judges test is the operational rule: of two pleasures, if all or almost all who have experienced both prefer one, that pleasure is of higher quality. The utility formula becomes maximise higher-quality pleasure, even at the expense of quantity.

密尔在质上重构了功利公式。快乐不仅仅是量的差别；理智和道德快乐在质上高于单纯的肉体快乐。胜任判断者测试是操作规则：两种快乐中，如果所有或几乎所有对两者均有体验的人都偏好其中一种，则该快乐具有更高质量。功利公式变成了在必要时牺牲数量来最大化高质量快乐。

Objection — Swine Objection Repelled: By distinguishing qualities, Mill answers the charge that utilitarianism is a doctrine ‘worthy only of swine’. Humans, capable of higher faculties, derive a deeper, more valuable happiness from intellectual pursuits — even if accompanied by discontent — than a pig from base satiation. But critics ask: if higher pleasures are qualitatively distinct, is this still measurable utility?

反驳——击退猪的指控：通过区分质量，密尔回应了功利主义是“只配给猪的”学说的指责。人类拥有更高能力，即使伴随着不满足，从理智追求中获得的幸福感也比猪从低等餍足中获得的更深、更有价值。但批评者会问：如果高级快乐在质上不同，这还是可度量的功利吗？

7. The Categorical Imperative: Universal Law Formulation | 绝对命令：普遍法则公式

Kant’s moral formula: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. The test is performed in two stages: (1) formulate your maxim — the subjective principle of your action; (2) universalise it — imagine everyone following the same maxim in all relevantly similar circumstances. The maxim passes if it can be consistently willed without contradiction.

康德的道德公式：只按照你同时能够愿意它成为一项普遍法则的准则去行动。检测分两步进行：(1) 表述你的准则——你行动的主观原则；(2) 普遍化它——设想所有人在所有相关相似情境中都遵循同一准则。如果它能够被一致地意愿而不含矛盾，该准则就通过了检验。

Contradiction in Conception: The maxim, if universalised, makes the action inconceivable. E.g., making a false promise to secure a loan would destroy the practice of promising altogether. 构想中的矛盾：准则被普遍化后使行动在概念上变得不可设想。例如，为保证借款而做出虚假承诺会彻底摧毁承诺这种实践。
Contradiction in Willing: The universalised maxim is conceivable but rationally inconsistent with what a rational agent must will. E.g., a maxim of never helping others in distress cannot be willed because we may need help ourselves. 意愿中的矛盾：被普遍化的准则是可设想的，但在理性上与理性存在者必须意愿的东西不一致。例如，永远不帮助困境中他人的准则是无法意愿的，因为我们也可能需要帮助。

Kant’s second formulation: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This formula prohibits exploitation and demands respect for the rational agency inherent in every person. A person cannot be used as a mere instrument for one’s own purposes.

康德的第二条公式：你要如此行动，总是将人性——无论是对你自身还是对任何他人——从不只当作手段，而是永远同时当作目的。这一公式禁止剥削，并要求尊重内在于每个人的理性能动性。一个人不能被仅仅当作实现自身目的的工具来使用。

Contra Utilitarianism: This formula directly contradicts aggregative consequentialism. It forbids sacrificing one innocent person to save five — because that person would be used as a mere means to maximise welfare. Each rational being has dignity, not a price, and dignity admits of no equivalent trade-off.

与功利主义对立：这一公式与聚合后果主义直接矛盾。它禁止牺牲一个无辜者去拯救五个人——因为那个人会被仅仅当作最大化福利的手段。每个理性存在者拥有尊严而非价格，尊严不允许进行等价权衡。

9. The Is-Ought Gap: Hume’s Guillotine | 实然-应然鸿沟：休谟断头台

Hume’s Law: No set of descriptive premises — statements about what is the case — can deductively entail a prescriptive conclusion — a statement about what ought to be. Any argument that moves from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ without an intervening normative premise commits a logical leap. The formula exposes an inferential gap in all moral systems that attempt to derive values solely from facts.

休谟法则：任何一组描述性前提——关于事实的陈述——都无法演绎地推导出一个规范性结论——关于应当如何的陈述。任何从“实然”到“应然”而缺少中介规范性前提的论证，都犯下了逻辑跳跃。该公式揭露了所有试图单纯从事实推导出价值的道德体系中的推理鸿沟。

Naturalistic Fallacy: Moore sharpens this: the property ‘good’ is simple, non-natural, and indefinable. To equate good with any natural property (e.g., pleasure, evolutionary fitness) is an open-question fallacy. ‘Pleasure is good’ is not analytic; it makes sense to ask ‘but is pleasure really good?’ — proving good cannot be identical to pleasure.

自然主义谬误：摩尔进一步指出：“善”这一属性是简单的、非自然的、不可定义的。将善与任何自然属性（如快乐、进化适应性）等同起来是一种开放问题谬误。“快乐是善”并非分析的；问“但快乐真的善吗？”是有意义的——这证明善不能等同于快乐。

10. The Mind-Body Interaction: Substance Dualism Formula | 心身交互：实体二元论公式

Descartes’ formula: The mind is a non-extended, thinking substance (res cogitans), while the body is an extended, non-thinking substance (res extensa). They interact causally through the pineal gland. The argument from indivisibility: the body is divisible into parts, the mind is indivisible into parts; therefore, mind and body must be distinct substances — indivisibility implies non-identity.

笛卡尔的公式：心灵是非广延的、思维着的实体（res cogitans），而身体是广延的、无思维的实体（res extensa）。二者通过松果体因果地交互。可分性论证：身体可分割成部分，心灵则不可分割成部分；因此，心灵和身体必然是不同实体——不可分割性蕴涵非同一性。

Interaction Problem — Princess Elisabeth’s Objection: How can an unextended, non-physical substance cause movement in a physical substance? Causation requires spatial contact or field transfer; a non-spatial mind lacks the location and mechanism to push particles. Descartes never provides a satisfactory physics of interaction, leaving the formula with a fatal explanatory gap.

交互难题——伊丽莎白公主的反驳：一个非广延的、非物理的实体如何能在物理实体中引发运动？因果性需要空间接触或场传递；一个非空间的心灵缺乏位置和机制来推动微粒。笛卡尔从未提供令人满意的交互物理学，使该公式留下了致命的解释鸿沟。

11. The Teleological Argument: Paley’s Watchmaker Theorem | 目的论论证：佩利的钟表匠定理

The argument from design follows an analogical formula. Premise 1: A watch exhibits complex, ordered parts working together for a purpose (keeping time); we infer a watchmaker. Premise 2: The natural world (e.g., the eye, the ecosystem) exhibits far greater complexity and adaptation of means to ends. Conclusion: By analogy, the natural world must have an intelligent designer — God. The inference to design is the best explanation of apparent teleology.

设计论证遵循一个类比公式。前提 1：一块钟表表现出复杂、有序的零件共同为某个目的（计时）而运作；我们推断出有一位钟表匠。前提 2：自然界（如眼睛、生态系统）展现出更高程度的复杂性和手段对目的的适配。结论：通过类比，自然界必然有一位智能设计者——上帝。对设计的推断是表面目的性的最佳解释。

Hume’s Counter-Formula — The Problem of Evil and the Imperfect Design: If the world is like a designed machine, the ‘machine’ exhibits flaws, waste, and immense suffering — features we would never attribute to a perfect designer. The analogy undermines itself: the world resembles an immature first attempt at deity, or the work of multiple deities, or a vegetative generation, more than a single, omnipotent, benevolent God. Design does not entail the God of classical theism.

休谟的反向公式——恶的问题与不完善设计：如果世界像一台被设计出来的机器，那么这台“机器”展现出缺陷、浪费和巨大的痛苦——这些特征我们绝不会归诸于一个完美的设计者。这个类比自我削弱：比起一位单一、全能、全善的上帝，世界更像一位神灵的不成熟初试品，或多个神灵的作品，或者某种植物性繁殖。设计并不能推导出经典有神论的上帝。

The logical problem of evil presents an inconsistent set of three propositions, all of which classical theism affirms. (1) God is omnipotent — can prevent all evil. (2) God is perfectly benevolent — would want to prevent all evil. (3) Evil exists. If any two are true, the third must be false. The set appears to form a contradiction; thus, the God of classical theism cannot logically exist if evil is real.

恶的逻辑问题呈现了一个包含三个命题的不一致集合，而经典有神论肯定了其中所有命题。(1) 上帝是全能的——能够防止一切恶。(2) 上帝是全然仁慈的——想要防止一切恶。(3) 恶存在。如果任何两个为真，第三个必然为假。这组命题看起来构成了矛盾；因此，如果恶是实在的，经典有神论的上帝在逻辑上不可能存在。

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence — Blocking the Contradiction: Plantinga shows the triad is not explicitly contradictory because a hidden entailment is needed. He adds a fourth proposition: a world with free creatures who freely choose good over evil is more valuable than a world of automata, and even omnipotence cannot guarantee that free creatures never misuse their freedom. It is possible that God could not create a world with significant moral good without permitting moral evil. The logical contradiction is broken.

普兰丁格的自由意志辩护——打破矛盾：普兰丁格指出这三个命题并不构成显式矛盾，因为还需要一个隐含的蕴涵关系。他添加了第四个命题：一个有自由受造物自由选择善而非恶的世界，比一个自动机器的世界更有价值，且即使是全能也无法保证自由受造物绝不会滥用其自由。很可能上帝无法创造一个含有显著道德善却又允免道德恶的世界。逻辑矛盾因此被打破。

Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

A-Level AQA Philosophy: Formula & Theorem Quick Reference Handbook | A-Level AQA 哲学：公式定理速查手册