哲学指的是什么，哲学的目的是什么？哲学的信仰是什么？，哲学的意义哲学价值指的什么

【龙腾网】 科学和哲学有什么区别？

正文翻译

图

评论翻译
eorge Harrison
I disagree with most of the answers given.Despite the original name of “natural philosophy”, science has little to do with philosophy, and at best can be considered complementary to philosophy.Let me explain first by way of example.

我不同意给出的大多数答案。尽管科学的原名是“自然哲学”，但它与哲学几乎没有关系，充其量可以被认为是对哲学的补充。让我先举例解释一下。
Aristotle was a philosopher. He thought deeply, mostly in his arm chair I presume, and carefully considered observations made by others (such as the apparent motion of the stars, moon and sun in the sky) at their face value, and came up with very complex explanations (epicycles etc.) that were proven total nonsense by science. Yet he and his philosophies had a profound influence on western civilization. Some say, and I tend to agree, that Aristotle followed by the Catholic Church, set back western civilization by almost 2000 years.

亚里士多德是一位哲学家。我想，他大部分时间都坐在扶手椅上进行了深入思考，并仔细考虑了其他人所做的观察（例如天空中星星、月亮和太阳的视运动）的表面价值，并提出了非常复杂的解释（本轮 等）被科学证明完全是胡说八道。 然而，他和他的哲学对西方文明产生了深远的影响。 有人说，我也倾向于这种观点，亚里士多德之后的天主教会使西方文明倒退了将近 2000 年。
Kepler was a scientist (perhaps the first one) who analyzed the extremely accurate data of the positions of the “wandering stars” (the planets that moved relative to the background of fixed stars) painstakingly taken by Tycho Brahe, and noticed that the motion of the planets actually fitted an ellipse with the sun at one of its foci. This is the scientific method. Open to challenge by anyone bringing in any verifiable data that falsifies the tentative conclusions.

开普勒是一位科学家（也许是第一位），他分析了第谷-布拉赫费尽心思取得的 "游星"（相对于固定恒星背景移动的行星）位置的极其精确的数据，并注意到行星的运动实际上符合一个以太阳为焦点之一的椭圆形。这就是科学的方法。任何人都可以带着任何可验证的数据来挑战，以推翻暂定的结论。
Science is concerned only with the quantitative analysis of obxtive reality, which means analysis of careful measurements made by unbiased observers, and drawing a tentative conclusion that is consistent with all the verifiable data. Since measurements with tools and instruments only work with physical obxts (which includes energy particles like photons), science is also concerned exclusively with physical reality.

科学只关注对客观现实的定量分析，这意味着对无偏见的观察者所做的仔细测量进行分析，并得出与所有可验证数据相一致的暂定结论。由于用工具和仪器进行的测量只对物理物体（包括像光子这样的能量粒子）起作用，科学也只关注物理现实。
Science has no role in people’s feelings, visions and beliefs, which is the domain of philosophy. Religion is a particular subset of philosophy that starts from a belief in some supernatural (unobservable, unmeasurable, unverifiable) entity that allegedly via a certain special human, stipulates certain values and principles to live ones life by, and then adds a long list of rituals and practices to distinguish itself more easily from competing religions. If you actually study religions you will find that the underlying philosophy is very much the same, only the rituals and details differ.

科学对人们的感觉、愿景和信仰没有作用，那是哲学的范畴。宗教是哲学的一个特殊分支，它的出发点是相信一些超自然（无法观察、无法测量、无法证实）的实体，据说是通过某个特殊的人，规定了某些价值观和生活原则，然后增加了一长串的仪式和做法，以使自己更容易与竞争性的宗教区分开。如果你真正研究宗教，你会发现其基本哲学是非常相同的，只是仪式和细节不同。
I am a scientist but I also subscribe to certain philosophies as to how I live my life.
For example, one key philosophy that I believe strongly, in one word, is: MODERATION.

我是一名科学家，但我也赞同某些关于我如何生活的哲学。
例如，一句话，我坚信的一个关键哲学是：适度。
I believe almost anything done in moderation is ok (with a few exceptions like murder etc) while going to extremes (like eating too much first, then jogging to burn the excess calories, or completely stop eating meat or carbs) seems illogical.
Another philosophy (often stipulated by many religions but neglected by their subscribers) I believe and practice is: treating humans and other animals the way I would like to be treated.

我相信几乎任何事情适度地做都是可以的（有几个例外，如谋杀等），而走极端（如先吃得太多，然后慢跑来消耗多余的热量，或完全不吃肉或碳水化合物）似乎不合逻辑。
我相信并实践的另一个理念（许多宗教经常规定，但被其信徒忽视）是：以我希望得到的方式对待人类和其他动物。
I hope I have answered clearly what is see is the difference between science and philosophy.

我希望我已经清楚地回答了什么是科学和哲学之间的区别。
Jay Ace
I would be provocative: there is none. Science is only a branch of philosophy. Let us speak, like Newton, of natural philosophy. In short, you might as well ask for the difference between a man and his legs! A metaphor which also has the advantage of showing that the sciences allow philosophy to be active. But, I would not discard myself and propose to demonstrate my assertion!

我会很有挑战性地说：科学并不是哲学的一个分支。就像牛顿一样，让我们谈论自然哲学。简而言之，这就好比你问一个人和他的腿之间有什么区别！这个比喻也有一个优点，即展示了科学如何使哲学变得积极活跃。但是，我不会自我排除并且会提出证明我的说法的建议！
I) First of all, etymologically, philo is to love and sophia is wisdom, reasoning I would say, but also knowledge, knowledge. Philosophy would therefore be the appetite or the belief (first qualifier: it is a belief!) that if we had all the necessary facts and a sufficient capacity for reasoning we could ... understand. Note that, in fact, philosophy does not define so much "what we will understand" or even "with what facts". It is always contextual: it is an approach, a step, a method: I let you find the term, more or less strong, which best qualifies it from this point of view.

首先，从词源上讲，“philo”指的是爱，“sophia”指的是智慧，推理，但也包括知识。哲学因此被认为是一种追求或信仰（第一个限定词：这是一种信仰！），即如果我们有所有必要的事实和足够的推理能力，我们就能够理解……。需要注意的是，事实上，哲学并没有如此明确定义“我们将会理解什么”甚至“使用哪些事实”。它总是有上下文的：这是一种方法，一种步骤，一种方法：从这个角度来看，您可以找到最好地描述它的术语，或多或少强烈。
II) Ok on these bases, but it's a bit vague, how to proceed? Here again, let's stay on the fundamentals, Socrates, through Plato. I would speak of Socrates, more precisely, the Socrates of Alcibiades major. Socrates crosses paths with Alcibiades who is heading firmly towards the political center of Athens. Alcibiades pretends to ask the citizens to leave the government to him. Socrates is surprised. Indeed, they both agree that for a large number of activities, even the most harmless, we will ask for skills and even proof of them. But Alcibiades fails to demonstrate any for the governance of the city. Apart from the fact that the dialogue is tasty, it clearly shows the basis of Socratic reasoning, which we will see developing and renewing itself throughout Plato's texts. But also the basics of scientific reasoning.

II）基于这些基础，但这有点模糊，如何进行？在这里，让我们仍然坚持基本原则，苏格拉底（Socrates），通过柏拉图（Plato）。我要谈的是苏格拉底，更准确地说，是阿尔西比亚德大帝的苏格拉底。苏格拉底与正朝着雅典政治中心进发的阿尔西比亚德相遇。阿尔西比亚德假装要求市民将政府交给他。苏格拉底感到惊讶。事实上，他们两人都同意，对于大量的活动，即使是最无害的活动，我们也会要求具备技能，甚至是技能的证明。但是阿尔西比亚德未能证明自己具备治理城市的技能。除了这个对话很有趣之外，它清楚地展示了苏格拉底推理的基础，我们将在柏拉图的文本中看到它不断发展和更新。但也是科学推理的基础。