How to understand the "Hume problem"?

Hume's question, that is, whether the so-called "should" can be derived from "yes", that is, whether the "fact" proposition can be derived from the "value" proposition, is a famous question put forward by Hume in his theory of human nature. This problem occupies an important position in the history of modern western philosophy, and many famous philosophers have intervened one after another, but it has not been effectively solved. In recent years, China philosophers have shown great enthusiasm for this issue, but they still failed to touch the essence of Hume's problem. The author thinks that Hume's problem is a very important philosophical proposition, which embodies the relationship between social science and natural science. Whether it can be solved smoothly directly restricts the development direction and speed of the whole social science.

First, the origin of the mode selection problem

Some previous philosophers thought that morality can prove its certainty like geometry or algebra. However, Hume believes that science can do nothing about moral problems, and science can only answer the question of "what" but not tell us the question of "how". He wrote in "The Theory of Human Nature": "In every moralistic system I met, I always noticed that the author once followed the usual way of reasoning ... but all of a sudden, I was surprised to find that what I met was no longer the usual conjunction" yes "and" no "in the proposition, but that there was no proposition that was not composed of a" should "or" no ". Although this change is unconscious, it is of great significance. Because this should or should not represent a new relationship or affirmation, it must be discussed and explained; At the same time, we should also give the reason for this seemingly incredible thing, that is, how this new relationship is derived from other completely different relationships. However, since writers are usually not so cautious, I would like to advise readers to be careful; And I believe that such a little attention will overthrow all popular moral systems ... ". Although Hume himself did not explicitly answer his own question, his meaning was negative, that is, he could not deduce "should" from "yes".

Strictly speaking, the problem of Hugh mode refers not to the relationship between fact and value, but to the relationship between fact proposition and value proposition. Because fact propositions generally take "yes" as the copula, while value propositions generally take "should" as the copula, the problem of Hugh mode is also called "what is it, what should it be".

Second, the debate about demoulding.

Hugh mode mainly refers to the relationship between fact proposition and value proposition, which contains two meanings: first, value proposition cannot be directly derived from fact proposition; Second, value judgment cannot be scientifically recognized and proved. The debate about Hume's problem is mainly manifested in naturalism and non-naturalism, intuitionism and non-intuitionism, emotionalism, conventionalism, descriptive and other schools. These schools can be summarized into two basic schools, namely, cognitivism and non-cognitivism. The former thinks that moral proposition is meaningful and can be recognized and confirmed, while the latter doubts the former's point of view.

1, naturalism and unnatural. Naturalism is a theory that defines and explains morality with natural attributes. It holds that moral good and evil are the natural attributes of things, that is, the attributes of things that can be observed by experience, such as happiness, happiness and interests. In other words, all moral and value attributes can be defined by facts, or translated into factual attributes, so it is possible to deduce or deduce should or ethical judgments from yes or fact judgments; Non-naturalistic ethics uses some metaphysical and transcendental judgments as the basis of ethical or value judgments. It holds that moral good and evil can neither be confirmed nor deduced from empirical facts.

2. Intuitionism. Intuitionism, represented by Moore, holds that both naturalism and unnatural ethics have committed the fallacy of naturalism. The so-called fallacy of naturalism is that it confuses goodness and goodness in essence, and defines and defines various ethical viewpoints of goodness with natural facts or supernatural reality. Naturalism ethics seeks "what should be" from facts and confuses "what should be" and "what should be"; Metaphysical ethics seeks truth from "what is" and "what should be" and regards "should" as a supernatural entity. Moore believes that the meaning of value attribute is different from the meaning of fact attribute, and the concept of "goodness" is simple, ultimate, non-intuitive, non-experimental and non-analytical, and can not be defined. Good is good.

3. Emotional. Emotionalism is associated with logical positivism. It believes that "goodness" has no comparable marking function, but only serves as an emotional marker to express our attitude. Ethics or value language is only the expression of the subject's mood, emotion or attitude, which can neither be confirmed by empirical facts nor deduced from empirical facts. It is a cold and meaningless pseudo-concept and pseudo-judgment, and only those confirmed directly or indirectly by experience, or consistent with logic.

4. Traditionalism. The conventional theory represented by British Hale holds that the basic meaning of value judgment is not to describe objective facts, nor to express feelings and attitudes, but to stipulate and restrict people's choices and guide people's behavior. It is a standard language, and it can also be generalized. Value judgment is prescriptive and has the function of regulating, restraining and guiding behavior, while fact judgment, as a description of facts, is not prescriptive, and there is an insurmountable logical gap between them. It is impossible to deduce the value judgment simply from the fact judgment.

5. Descriptionism. Descriptionism represented by Frankner (also known as neo-naturalism) tries to find the middle point (concept) between facts and values.

From the above analysis, it can be seen that almost all schools think that the value proposition cannot be directly derived from the fact proposition, and the differences between schools mainly lie in how to understand the difference between the fact proposition and the value proposition, especially under the influence of logical positivism. Modern British and American philosophy believes that there is an insurmountable gap between the fact proposition and the value proposition, commonly known as Hugh's law. Secondly, the mainstream view holds that there are no universal and objective argumentation rules among various value propositions, because they involve people's own feelings, interests and obligations.

Third, how to deduce "should" from "yes"

In order to understand whether "yes" can be derived from "should", we must first know what "yes" is. What is "should"? What is the connection and difference between the two?

1, the relationship between "yes" and "should". The essential connotation of "yes" is to reflect people's understanding of the state, characteristics and regularity of objective things; The essential connotation of "should" reflects people's understanding of the state, characteristics and regularity of the value of objective things. Obviously, "the value of objective things" is an objective thing in itself, but it is more complicated and unpredictable than ordinary objective things, so "should" and "yes" have the same essential connotation.

2. The difference between "yes" and "should". When the state and characteristics of things are simple, clear and clear, they can be described by "yes"; When the state and characteristics of things are multi-valued, probabilistic and fuzzy, they can only be described by "should". Moreover, the more complex a thing is, the more it depends on "should" and the farther it is from "yes" to describe its state and characteristics.

For example, if table tennis has only one color-yellow, then the description of the actual color of table tennis is: "The color of table tennis is yellow"; If the color of table tennis has two probabilities, of which the probability of yellow is 95% and the probability of white is 5%, then the description of the actual color of table tennis is: "The color of table tennis should be yellow". For another example, a person's appearance can only vaguely reflect a person's actual age. If a person looks forty years old, then the description of his age is: "His age should be forty years old".

The value of objective things is not only related to the quality characteristics of objective things (that is, objects), but also related to the quality characteristics of knowers (that is, subjects) and environmental things (that is, mediators). For example, the value of drinking water to people is not only related to the quality of drinking water, but also related to the degree of water shortage of human body and the dry state of the environment. Therefore, "the value of objective things" is more complex, diverse and unpredictable than the objective things themselves, and has stronger multi-value, probability and fuzziness. The more the description of "the value of objective things" depends on "should", the farther away from "yes".

In a word, "should" is a complex expression of "yes", and the complex proposition with "should" as the copula is composed of many simple propositions with "yes" as the copula, from which the "should" proposition can be completely deduced.

Fourthly, how to deduce the value proposition from the fact proposition.

If you want to know how the fact proposition deduces the value proposition, you must first know what the "fact" is. What is "value"? What is the connection and difference between the two?

1, the relationship between facts and values. Factual relationship refers to the mutual connection and interaction between objective things that exist objectively and are not transferred by human will; Among all factual relationships, there is a special factual relationship, which occurs between human subject and objective things. The result of mutual connection and interaction must be able to promote (or hinder) the orderly process of human subject, or promote (or hinder) the survival and development of human subject. Therefore, value relationship is a special form of factual relationship, which links objective things with the survival and development of the subject. The generalized factual relationship can be divided into value factual relationship (referred to as value relationship) and non-value factual relationship (referred to as factual relationship).

2. The difference between factual relationship and value relationship. The survival and development of the subject is the fundamental goal of all value relations, and it is also the fundamental difference between value relations and fact relations. Any value relationship must be based on the subject goal and must rely on the subject. Without subject, there is no value relationship. Because the human subject is a complex large system, influenced by many variables, the value relationship of objective things depends not only on the quality characteristics of the subject and the objective things themselves, but also on the quality characteristics of environmental factors. The value relationship will be more multi-valued, probabilistic, fuzzy and nonlinear than the factual relationship.

In a word, "value" is a complex expression of "fact", and the "value proposition" used to describe various value relationships is composed of many "fact propositions" used to describe various fact relationships, and the value proposition can be completely deduced from the fact proposition.

5. How to deduce social laws from natural laws.

Traditionally, social law and natural law are two different types of objective laws, each with completely opposite logical directions. "Man struggles upwards and water flows downwards" can be used as an image description of these two different laws. The connection and difference between social law and natural law are mainly manifested in seven aspects:?

1, the origin of social laws is natural laws. Human beings are highly developed products of natural materials, and the origin of human society is natural materials. Social laws must come from natural laws, and any social law can be dialectically attributed to several basic physical laws and chemical laws. Any social law can be dialectically (not mechanically) reduced to some natural laws, and its prototype can be found in natural laws. Because of this, all social sciences can base their assumptions on the basic axioms of natural sciences, thus completely eliminating subjective assumptions that may cause controversy.

2. Social laws comprehensively reflect the specific contents of various natural laws. Social law is by no means a simple superposition and mechanical mixing of various natural laws, but an organic coordination according to a certain time and space order, logical structure and mode of action, thus producing a certain coherent effect and forming a brand-new objective law. Because of this, all social sciences can be comprehensively described by various natural science methods.

3. Social laws reflect the development direction of natural laws in the overall effect of the open system. Physics thinks that the material world will develop in an increasingly disorderly direction, while social science thinks that the biological world and human society will develop in an increasingly orderly direction. Because the biological world and human society always leave more disorder to the environment in the process of their orderly development, if the biological world and human society and their surrounding environment are regarded as a whole system, it is still developing in the direction of increasing disorder, which does not violate the physical laws, but only reflects the development direction of natural laws in the overall effect. Because of this, social science as a whole can be regarded as a special part of natural science, and its ultimate destination is natural scientization.

4. Social laws reflect the objective content of natural laws at a higher logical level. The higher the logical level of social law, the more indirect, complex and abstract the objective content of natural law it embodies, and the farther away it is from natural law in surface form. Because of this, social science is more abstract than ordinary natural science, and it follows more complicated logical rules. Therefore, people have to make some bold subjective assumptions and judgments to eliminate a large number of uncertain variables and simplify the research procedures of social sciences, which determines that traditional social sciences have more subjective assumptions and fewer basic axioms.

5. Social laws reflect the inevitable characteristics of natural laws and have greater contingency and volatility. Man is a very complex organic system, which consists of many random variables. People's thinking and behavior must have great randomness or contingency, but this does not mean that people's thinking and behavior are completely random and unpredictable. In fact, people's thinking and behavior are restricted by more complicated social laws. There is a certain regularity or inevitability hidden behind people's thinking and behavior, which is only indirectly reflected through many complicated things with great contingency, and it is difficult for people to find it. Obviously, the more complex the system is, the greater the contingency of its movement changes, the more profound and complicated the inevitability that follows, and the less easily it is recognized by people. Because social laws often need to be reflected by many accidental and irreversible social events, it is often difficult to obtain empirical evidence for various social laws expounded by social sciences, which determines that social sciences are more speculative and less empirical.

6. Social laws reflect the deterministic characteristics of natural laws, with more fuzziness and chaos. The movement and change of general matter, whether it is the trajectory of time and space or the way of movement, are relatively certain. However, the movement and changes of higher organisms are relatively vague, and various social laws are often too complicated and complicated to be clearly and accurately presented to people. People usually can only make inaccurate qualitative analysis with the help of a large number of subjective assumptions. Therefore, according to the same social event, people can sum up some different or even completely opposite social laws from different observation angles. There are different or even completely opposite social science theories, and none of them has sufficient theoretical basis to prove their own views or refute others' views, which determines that social science is highly vague, diverse and contradictory, and its accuracy, singleness and identity are low.

7. Social laws reflect the objective stipulation of natural laws with more initiative and creativity. The essential difference between human beings and lower organisms is that human beings have great initiative and creativity. He can not only passively adapt to the environment, but also actively transform and create the environment. But it must be based on obedience and obedience to the laws of nature, and it cannot violate the objective provisions of the laws of nature in essence. On the contrary, it is the embodiment of the objective provisions of natural laws in a higher sense. Because of people's initiative and creativity, social science has strong subjective will, emotional tendency and class nature, and less objectivity, rationality and fairness.

In fact, social laws and natural laws are interrelated and different. If the two are separated, it is easy to mystify the social laws, thus making the mistake of idealism or agnosticism; If we confuse the two, it is easy to simplify or metaphysical social laws, thus making mistakes of mechanical materialism and metaphysics.

Everything in the world is in constant motion. Of all the properties of matter, motion is the most basic property, and other properties are concrete manifestations of motion properties. There are various forms of motion of matter, and each specific form of motion of matter has a corresponding form of energy. When the motion forms are different, the only physical quantity that can describe and compare the motion characteristics of two substances is energy, that is, the energy characteristics are the same characteristics of all moving substances, and the energy scale is the universal scale of all motion forms. The philosophical essence of energy is: a unified objective scale to measure the scale of all material movements. All movements in human society are essentially complex manifestations of energy movement. Value is the power source of human survival and development, and also the power source of all human movements, so value is also a special form of energy.

The "value unification theory" founded by the author holds that value is a kind of "generalized ordered energy", which contains two meanings: first, value is ordered energy, and disorderly energy is not in the value category; Second, value includes direct ordered energy (namely ordered real energy) and indirect ordered energy (namely ordered virtual energy). All forms and levels of value can eventually be converted into standardized food energy, and its measurement unit is the energy unit-Joule. The unified value theory also holds that the law of generalized value can be derived from the maximum order law of dissipative structure theory in physics, and then all social laws can be directly or indirectly derived from the law of generalized value, that is, the law of generalized value is the mother law of all social laws, and this mother law is derived from the basic axioms of natural science.

Sixth, the significance of solving the problem of crystallizer suspension

It is not difficult to find that Hume's problem (that is, the relationship between "yes" and "should") actually reflects the relationship between facts and values, the relationship between natural law and social law, and the relationship between natural science and social science. Therefore, a thorough solution to Hume's problem will have a great impact on the development of natural science and social science.

1, paving the way for social science to move towards natural science in an all-round way. Value problem is the core problem to be solved in social science, and axiology is the basic theory of the whole social science. The solution of Hume's problem can help people to look at value from the perspective of "facts" and define value from the perspective of energy, which is conducive to the unification, mathematicization and natural scientization of value theory, thus laying the foundation for eventually eliminating the subjectivity, ambiguity and fuzziness that are common in social sciences.

2. Thoroughly implement materialism in the spiritual field (especially the emotional field). For a long time, the problem of leaving the mold completely separated natural science from "spiritual science", which made idealism occupy the field of spiritual science for a long time. Academic circles generally believe that spiritual science (such as moral science) is completely independent of natural science, and value judgment is only a subjective consciousness, which cannot be confirmed by science at all; Natural science is restricted by universal and inevitable eternal natural laws, while the rules of spiritual science are always established; The historical development of natural science is independent of human will, while spiritual science can be planned by people. Natural science emphasizes interpretation, while spiritual science mainly emphasizes understanding. The former emphasizes the revelation of causality, while the latter emphasizes an experience. The solution of Hume's problem can help people realize that human society is the material movement form of nature, social law is the complex expression form of natural law, and spiritual science is the complex expression form of natural science, which can be completely deduced from the basic axioms of natural science, thus clearing the way for materialism to be thoroughly implemented in the field of spiritual science.