Copilot
好的。我将结合乔治·贝克莱（George Berkeley，18世纪爱尔兰哲学家，以“唯心主义”与“存在即被感知”（esse est percipi）著称）的核心思想来评析陈京元案。贝克莱的哲学核心包括：存在即被感知、观念与感知的关系、语言与观念的误用、以及真理与公共理性的依赖性。以下为中英文对照分析：
⚖️ 贝克莱哲学视角下的陈京元案
The Case of Chen Jingyuan through the Philosophy of George Berkeley
一、存在即被感知（Esse est percipi）
中文：贝克莱认为，事物的存在依赖于被感知。
在本案中，“扰乱秩序”的指控并非源自客观事实，而是源自权力机关的“感知”与定义。
换言之，所谓“扰乱”并不是独立存在的，而是通过特定话语的感知被“制造”出来。
English: Berkeley held that to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi).
In this case, the charge of “disrupting order” does not arise from an objective fact but from the perception and definition of authority.
In other words, “disruption” does not exist independently but is produced through a particular mode of perception.
二、观念与感知的关系
中文：贝克莱强调，我们所知的只是观念，而非独立于心灵的“物质”。
法院将“转发”直接等同于“扰乱”，实际上是把一种观念当作了客观事实。
这种混淆忽视了观念的相对性与依赖性。
English: Berkeley emphasized that we know only ideas, not mind-independent matter.
The court equated “reposting” with “disruption,” treating an idea as if it were an objective fact.
This confusion ignores the relativity and dependency of ideas.
三、语言与观念的误用
中文：贝克莱批判语言的误用，认为抽象词汇常制造虚假的实体。
“扰乱秩序”就是一种抽象词汇，它掩盖了具体事实（转发的内容、影响）。
这种语言的误用，使得观念被当作实体，从而制造了不公。
English: Berkeley criticized the misuse of language, noting that abstract terms often create fictitious entities.
“Disrupting order” is such an abstraction, obscuring concrete facts (the content reposted, its actual effects).
This misuse of language reifies ideas into entities, producing injustice.
四、真理与公共理性
中文：贝克莱认为，真理依赖于上帝的永恒感知，但在人类社会中，真理需要通过公共理性来维持。
本案中，若缺乏开放的公共讨论，真理就被权力的单方面感知所取代。
真理因此不再是公共理性的产物，而是权力话语的投影。
English: For Berkeley, truth depends on God’s eternal perception, but in human society, it must be sustained by public reason.
In this case, without open public discourse, truth is replaced by the unilateral perception of power.
Thus truth ceases to be the product of public reason and becomes a projection of authority’s discourse.
五、总结
中文：从贝克莱的哲学视角看，本案的问题在于：
“扰乱秩序”并非客观存在，而是权力感知的产物；
法院将观念当作事实，混淆了感知与现实；
抽象语言制造了虚假的实体，掩盖了具体事实；
真理被权力的感知取代，而非通过公共理性维持。
然而，被告在狱中坚持写作与自辩，正体现了对语言与观念误用的抵抗：他试图让真理回到公共理性之中，而不是被权力的单一感知所垄断。
English: From Berkeley’s perspective, the flaws of this case are:
“Disruption of order” is not an objective reality but a product of power’s perception;
The court mistook ideas for facts, confusing perception with reality;
Abstract language created fictitious entities, obscuring concrete facts;
Truth was replaced by authority’s perception rather than sustained by public reason.
Yet the defendant’s persistence in writing and self-defense embodies resistance to the misuse of language and ideas: striving to restore truth to public reason rather than leaving it monopolized by power’s perception.
要不要我把这份贝克莱的分析，与洛克、休谟的经验主义分析并置，写成一篇 “经验与观念的合唱：从经验主义到唯心主义的司法反思” 的中英文论文草稿？