And Chomsky's argument is complicated and interesting, but the main sort of argument he had to make is goes like this.

乔姆斯基的论据很复杂，也很有意思，但他所提出的主要论据是这样的。

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

Well, I'm not going to follow the details of this argument, but the basic idea goes back to Descartes.

我不打算对这个论证进行详细讨论,只是说一下笛卡尔的基本思想

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

The same argument goes the other way, so this is an equilibrium.

另一个人退出也是同样的情况,所以这是一个均衡

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Whereas most utterances purport to be saying something true about the actual state of things in the world, literary utterance is under no such obligation, the argument goes, and ought properly to be understood as fiction making it up as opposed to referring.

大多数言辞都是对事物的真实状况的,真实反映，而这种观点认为，文学没有这个义务，应该把文学理解为小说,它是虚构而不是实指。

耶鲁公开课 - 文学理论导论课程节选

Maybe somehow we misunderstood how the argument goes and it doesn't exactly-- although these two arguments seem parallel, they're not, in fact, parallel.

也许我们误解了这个论证到底怎么进行的,其实不是的,虽然这两个理论看上去是类似的,但其实它们并不是类似的

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

From which it follows, the argument goes, that I don't really believe I'll ever be dead.

接下来，这个论点就变成，我不能够相信自己的死亡。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But people have a very special ability"-- and so the argument goes-- "That mere bodies couldn't have, physicalists can't explain. That's the ability to think.

但人类有一种特殊的技能,于是论证得以延续,纯粹的肉体无法拥有,物理主义者不能解释的技能,即思考

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

Now, the brilliant thing about this argument is it goes from that to a conclusion about there being a difference between my mind and my body.

这个论证最精彩的地方在于,其就此得出结论,心灵和身体之间存在着差异

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

Here's another version of an argument that goes from inference to the best explanation.

这是某个论证,从推理发展为最佳解释的另一种说法

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

As I say though, Plato may well recognize the inadequacy of that argument, because after all Socrates goes on to offer a series of other arguments.

柏拉图本身,可能已经认识到这个观点站不住脚,因为苏格拉底,还提供了一系列其他的观点

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

Armed with your pet diagnosis of where the argument goes wrong there, you've got to ask, "Does it also go wrong in the mind and body case?"

当你找到了一种判断这个论证,是否错误的方法时,你肯定会问,在心灵与身体的问题上,是不是也出了同样的错误

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

This tightly connected set of facts about us-- beliefs, desires, reasoning, strategizing, planning-- you need to appeal to a soul"-- so the argument goes--; "You need to appeal to a soul to explain that.

这些与我们自身联系紧密的东西,信仰,欲望,论证,谋略,规划,非得诉求灵魂才能解释,这个论点于是变成这样,你需要诉诸灵魂来解释这些

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

I'd be happy to discuss with you, outside class, at greater length my favorite theories as to where the argument goes wrong and why I think it goes wrong in Descartes' case as well.

就笛卡尔的论证到底错在哪儿的问题,我很愿意在课外,和你们详细谈谈,我最信服的理论,以及我个人的看法

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But I suggest that the argument goes wrong.

总之我认为笛卡尔的论证是有错误的

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

Maybe that's where the argument goes wrong.

也许那个论证就错在这里

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

Now, if we push the dualist to explain what is it about free will that rules out the possibility that we are merely physical objects, I think the natural suggestion to spell out the argument goes like this, and this is where we were at the end of last time.

现在如果我们让二元论者去解释,什么是自由意志,它又是如何否定,人仅仅是物理实体这种可能性的,我认为他们自然会这样,阐述这个论证,这是就我们在上节课结束时讲到的内容

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

My argument must be wrong because it goes against the lesson of the class and the lessons of the class are gospel right, they're not wrong ever, so what's wrong with that argument? Yes, Ale Well because you have to be able to agree, you have to be able to speak to them but we aren't allowed to show our partners what we wrote.

这个说法肯定有问题,因为这和我们的结论刚好背道而驰,结论是绝对正确的,结论没错,那这个说法错在哪,艾尔,因为你必须要能够达成一致,你需要和他们谈判,但是我们不允许同伴看到我的选择

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Maybe the argument goes wrong by assuming that identity--when A is equal to B, it's always equal to B, no matter what.

也许这个论证就错在,假设了同一性,即当A等于B的时候,它总是等于B,无论情况如何

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选