📚 Year 8 WJEC Philosophy: Quick Vocabulary Terms Memory Guide | Year 8 WJEC 哲学：词汇术语速记指南
Welcome to your fast-track guide to mastering the key terms in Year 8 WJEC Philosophy. This article pairs each fundamental concept with a memorable explanation, helping you build a strong foundation for essays, discussions, and exams. Whether you are just starting out or revising before a test, these bite-sized definitions and memory tricks will make tricky ideas stick. Let's dive into the world of arguments, ethics, and the big questions of existence.
欢迎来到 Year 8 WJEC 哲学核心术语速记指南。本指南将每个基本概念与好记的解释配对，帮助你为论文、讨论和考试打下坚实基础。无论你是初学者还是考前复习，这些简短的定义和记忆技巧都会让复杂的概念变得牢固。让我们一起探索论证、伦理和存在的重大问题吧。
1. Argument, Premise, Conclusion | 论证、前提、结论
In philosophy, an 'argument' is not a shouting match but a structured set of statements where some statements (premises) are intended to support another statement (the conclusion). A premise is a reason given for believing something, and the conclusion is the claim that the reasons are meant to establish. For example: 'All humans are mortal (premise). Socrates is a human (premise). Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).' To remember this, picture a house: premises are the foundation and walls, and the conclusion is the roof they hold up.
在哲学中，“论证”不是争吵，而是一组结构化的陈述，其中一些陈述（前提）旨在支持另一个陈述（结论）。前提是给出的理由，结论是这些理由所要确立的主张。例如：“所有人都会死（前提）。苏格拉底是人（前提）。所以苏格拉底会死（结论）。” 为了记忆，可以想象一座房子：前提是地基和墙壁，结论是它们支撑的屋顶。
2. Deduction and Induction | 演绎与归纳
Deductive arguments aim to provide logically conclusive support for their conclusions. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It moves from general rules to specific cases. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, provide probable support; they draw general conclusions from specific observations. Think of deduction as a funnel narrowing down, and induction as building a pyramid from scattered stones. A quick mnemonic: 'Deduction guarantees, Induction suggests.'
演绎论证旨在为结论提供逻辑上的必然支持。如果前提为真，结论必然为真。它是从一般规则到具体案例。而归纳论证提供的是可能性支持；它从具体观察中得出一般性结论。可以把演绎想象成一个逐渐变窄的漏斗，把归纳想象成用散乱的石头建造金字塔。一个快速记忆法：“演绎保证结论，归纳建议结论。”
3. Fallacy: Ad Hominem | 谬误：人身攻击
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. The name is Latin for 'to the person'. For instance, saying 'You can't trust her views on climate change because she failed science in school' ignores the evidence she presents. Remember this by thinking of a boxer trying to win a match by insulting the opponent's haircut instead of landing punches on the gloves — it distracts from the real fight.
“人身攻击”谬误指的是攻击提出论证的人，而不是论证本身。这个名称在拉丁语中意为“针对人”。例如，“你不能相信她对气候变化的观点，因为她上学时科学不及格”这句话忽略了她提供的证据。记住这个谬误，可以想象一个拳击手试图通过侮辱对手的发型来赢得比赛，而不是在拳套上打出有效拳——它转移了对真正较量的注意力。
4. Fallacy: Straw Man | 谬误：稻草人
The straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of engaging with the real position, you create a distorted, weaker version — a 'straw man' — and then knock it down. If someone says 'I think we should reduce military spending' and the reply is 'So you want to leave the country defenceless!', that is a straw man. Visualise a knight fighting a dummy made of straw instead of the real dragon; it looks impressive but proves nothing.
稻草人谬误指的是歪曲某人的论点，使其更容易被攻击。不是针对真实立场进行讨论，而是制造一个扭曲的、更弱的版本——“稻草人”——然后将它打倒。如果有人说“我认为我们应该削减军费开支”，而回复是“所以你想让国家毫无防备！”，这就是稻草人。想象一个骑士在与稻草做的假龙战斗，而不是真正的龙；看起来了不起，但什么都证明不了。
5. Ethical Theory: Utilitarianism | 伦理理论：功利主义
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the best action is the one that maximises overall happiness or 'utility'. It is a form of consequentialism — only the outcomes matter. Classic utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill proposed that we calculate pleasure minus pain to decide what is right. A handy memory phrase: 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'. Think of a group of friends choosing a film to watch; the utilitarian picks the one that makes the most people happy, even if it is not your personal favourite.
功利主义是这样一种伦理理论：最好的行为是能够最大化总体幸福或“功利”的行为。它是一种后果论——只有结果才重要。像杰里米·边沁和约翰·斯图尔特·密尔这样的经典功利主义者提出，我们通过计算快乐减去痛苦来决定什么是对的。一个方便的短句记忆法：“最大多数人的最大幸福。” 想象一群朋友选择看什么电影；功利主义者会选择让最多人开心的那部，即使它不是你的个人最爱。
6. Ethical Theory: Deontology | 伦理理论：义务论
Deontology, from the Greek deon (duty), is an ethical theory that judges the morality of an action based on rules and duties, not consequences. According to Immanuel Kant, we should act only according to principles that could become universal laws, and we must treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means. This is the opposite of utilitarianism. Remember it as the 'rule-first' approach: an action is right if it follows a moral rule, even if it leads to less happiness. Think of a referee who sticks strictly to the rulebook regardless of the crowd's cheers.
义务论，源自希腊语 deon（义务），是一种伦理理论，它基于规则和义务而非后果来判断行为的道德性。根据伊曼努尔·康德的观点，我们只应根据能够成为普遍法则的原则行事，并且必须始终将人视为目的本身，而不仅仅是手段。这与功利主义相反。将其记为“规则优先”的方法：只要行为遵循道德规则，它就是正确的，即使它导致较少的幸福。想象一个裁判严格遵守规则手册，不管观众的欢呼如何。
7. Relativism vs. Absolutism | 相对主义与绝对主义
Moral relativism claims that what is right or wrong depends on cultural, societal, or personal perspectives; there are no universal moral truths. Moral absolutism, in contrast, holds that certain actions are right or wrong regardless of context or opinion — they are objective and unchanging. A relativist might say 'stealing could be right if a society accepts it', while an absolutist would insist 'stealing is always wrong'. Use a map analogy: relativism says there are many valid routes, absolutism says some roads are permanently closed to everyone.
道德相对主义主张，对与错取决于文化、社会或个人的视角；不存在普遍的道德真理。相反，道德绝对主义认为某些行为无论背景或观点如何，都是对或错的——它们是客观且不变的。相对主义者可能会说“如果一个社会接受偷窃，那它就是对的”，而绝对主义者会坚称“偷窃永远是错的”。用地图来类比：相对主义说有许多有效路线，绝对主义说某些道路对所有人永久关闭。
8. Scepticism | 怀疑论
Philosophical scepticism is the attitude of doubting knowledge claims in various areas. A sceptic questions whether we can truly know anything with certainty. Radical sceptics argue that we cannot even be sure the external world exists — perhaps we are dreaming or living in a simulation. A softer, everyday scepticism just demands strong evidence before believing. To remember this, picture a detective who refuses to accept any statement as true until it is backed by solid clues. Scepticism is the detective's magnifying glass, not a refusal to ever believe.
哲学怀疑论是一种对各种知识主张持怀疑态度的立场。怀疑论者质疑我们是否真的能确切地知道任何事。彻底的怀疑论者认为，我们甚至无法确定外部世界是否存在——也许我们在做梦或生活在一个模拟中。一种较温和的日常怀疑论只是在相信之前要求强有力的证据。为了记忆，想象一个侦探，在得到确凿线索之前拒绝接受任何陈述为真。怀疑论是侦探的放大镜，而不是永远拒绝相信。
9. Rationalism and Empiricism | 理性主义与经验主义
These two theories are about where knowledge comes from. Rationalism argues that reason is the primary source of knowledge; some ideas are innate, and we can discover truths through thinking alone (like mathematics). Empiricism claims that all knowledge comes from sensory experience; we are born as blank slates. Descartes is a famous rationalist, while Locke and Hume are empiricists. A classroom memory trick: a rationalist closes their eyes and thinks hard to solve a problem, while an empiricist looks around, measures, and experiments.
这两种理论探讨的是知识的来源。理性主义认为理性是知识的主要来源；有些观念是与生俱来的，我们可以仅通过思考发现真理（如数学）。经验主义主张所有知识都来自感官经验；我们生来就像一张白板。笛卡尔是著名的理性主义者，而洛克和休谟是经验主义者。一个课堂记忆技巧：理性主义者闭上眼睛努力思考来解决问题，而经验主义者则环顾四周、测量并进行实验。
10. Free Will and Determinism | 自由意志与决定论
Do we genuinely choose our actions, or is everything predetermined? Free will is the idea that humans can make choices that are not forced by prior causes. Determinism states that every event, including human decisions, is the inevitable result of preceding events and natural laws. Compatibilism tries to find middle ground, suggesting that free will can exist even in a determined world if we act according to our desires without coercion. Think of a character in a video game: if all paths are pre-coded, is the character ever truly free?
我们真的能选择自己的行动，还是一切都是预先决定的？自由意志的观念是，人类可以做出不受先前原因强迫的选择。决定论指出，每一个事件，包括人的决定，都是先前事件和自然法则的必然结果。相容论试图寻找中间立场，认为即使在一个被决定的世界里，如果我们能够根据自己的欲望不受强迫地行动，自由意志仍然可以存在。想象一个电子游戏角色：如果所有路径都是预先编程好的，这个角色真的自由吗？
11. The Mind-Body Problem | 心身问题
This classic problem asks: what is the relationship between the mind (consciousness, thoughts) and the physical body (brain, neurons)? Dualism, defended by Descartes, claims the mind and body are two distinct substances. Physicalism (or materialism) argues that mental states are entirely physical brain states. A simple way to visualise the puzzle: if you feel sad, is that feeling something separate from the chemical changes in your brain, or are they exactly the same thing? This is the 'ghost in the machine' dilemma.
这个经典问题问的是：心灵（意识、思想）与物质身体（大脑、神经元）之间是什么关系？笛卡尔所捍卫的二元论声称，心灵和身体是两种不同的实体。物理主义（或唯物主义）则主张，心理状态完全是大脑的物理状态。一个简单的形象化理解：当你感到悲伤时，这种感觉是与大脑中的化学变化分离的，还是它们本身就是同一回事？这就是“机器中的幽灵”困境。
12. The Trolley Problem (Thought Experiment) | 电车难题（思想实验）
The Trolley Problem is a famous thought experiment in ethics. Imagine a runaway trolley heading towards five people tied to the track. You can pull a lever to divert it onto another track where only one person is tied. Should you pull the lever? This scenario tests utilitarian versus deontological reasoning. A utilitarian would likely pull the lever to save more lives; a deontologist might refuse because actively intervening makes you responsible for the one death. Remember it as the 'switch or no switch' dilemma that reveals how we weigh intentions against outcomes.
电车难题是伦理学中著名的思想实验。想象一辆失控的电车冲向绑在轨道上的五个人。你可以拉动一个控制杆，将电车转向另一条轨道，那里只绑着一个人。你应该拉动控制杆吗？这个情景检验了功利主义与义务论的推理。功利主义者很可能会拉动控制杆以拯救更多人；义务论者可能会拒绝，因为主动干预使你为那一人的死亡负责。将它记为“换轨还是不换轨”的困境，揭示了我们在意图与结果之间如何权衡。
Published by TutorHao | Philosophy Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图