論 著 / articles |
1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 44
Eric M. Peng
彭孟 堯
Why Resemblance is Not a Relation? -Trope Ontology in a Conceptualist Guise
為什麼相似性不是一個關係 ─從概念論看殊性存有論
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
It is argued that Trope Particularism need not take trope-level resemblance to be an ontological primitive. The main idea is the appeal to the Arity Principle suggested by Butchvarov. But, this does not mean that “resemblance” is unintelligible. I propose that “resemblance” can be metaphysically reduced to a second order internal relation over two first order internal relations such as “greater than” and “heavier than,” and that the phenomena of similarity should call solely for an epistemological or psychological explanation.
本論文試圖論證:殊性存有論並不需要將殊性之間的相似關係作為其存 有論的原初設定。論證主要依據所謂的「位元原則」。但這不表示「相似」 是一個沒有意義的概念。本論文建議,在形上學裡,「相似」可以化約到介 於兩個一階內存關係之間的二階內存關係,例如「大於」、「重於」;本論文 並且倡議相似現象應該訴求知識論或心理學的解釋。
|
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 44
杜保 瑞
Bau-Ruei Duh
對王陽明批評朱熹的理論反省
Reflections on Wang, Yang-Ming’s Criticism of Chu, Xi
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
This paper, taking ideas from history of philosophy, reflects on Wang, Yang-Ming’s criticisms of Chu, Xi. The reflection indicates that these critical ideas are all derived directly from Wang’s interpretation of Dah Xue (The Great Learning). Taking the perspective that nearly all Wang’s works are based on criticizing Chu’s theory, we can say however that Wang is deeply influenced by Chu. Actually, their difference is not that explicit as seen from the generally held distinction in history of philosophy between Cheng and Chu about Li (principle) school on the one hand and Lu and Wang about Xing (principle) school on the other. In fact, according to Wang’s criticisms which concentrated the limits of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu, we see clearly that the problem originated from Wang’s confusion of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu with Chu’s personal ability of Kung Fu. Moreover, on the Kung Fu theoretical level, Wang’s criticisms confused Chu’s theory of Kung Fu procedure and ontology with pure Kung Fu theory. Consequently this confusion caused the lost of accuracy. Besides, there were other problems relating to criticism based on different interpretations of Pre-Qing Dynasty texts and various views on deviating editions of Dah Xue. This paper however holds the view that these differences caused by referring to ancient texts can be attributed to their differences concerning their attitudes towards the fundamental philosophical problems. It is on thisview that this paper argues that the difference between Wang and Chu can be resolved by elaborating their differing problematics.本文針對哲學史上王陽明對朱熹批評的意見做反思,指出這些批評意 見,從直接的材料上講,主要都是依據《大學》文本詮釋而來的,從陽明的 哲學創作來講,又多是針對朱熹理論做反對而來,就此而言,王陽明實在是 受到朱熹影響很深,兩人真正的差距,不像是哲學史上將程朱、陸王分為理 學、心學兩派之差異那麼樣的極端。又從實際上王陽明所爭辯的問題來看,則多為朱熹工夫不得力的批評,這就又有屬於朱熹談工夫理論還是朱熹自己 的工夫修養程度兩種問題,陽明亦是混淆此兩者。又從工夫理論的批評來 講,陽明又有哲學基本問題的錯置,將朱熹談於工夫次第及形上學存有論問 題的發言都從本體工夫的形式去批評,以致失去其批評的準確度。此外,還有從不同的先秦典籍之義理依據而做的文本詮釋之批評,以及對《大學》版 本本身的意見不同之批評,但上述批評,還是可以化約到哲學基本問題的不 同所致之批評。本文即以此為進路,說明陽明批評朱熹的意見是有可以被解 消之處,關鍵即在問題意識不同。
This paper, taking ideas from history of philosophy, reflects on Wang, Yang-Ming’s criticisms of Chu, Xi. The reflection indicates that these critical ideas are all derived directly from Wang’s interpretation of Dah Xue (The Great Learning). Taking the perspective that nearly all Wang’s works are based on criticizing Chu’s theory, we can say however that Wang is deeply influenced by Chu. Actually, their difference is not that explicit as seen from the generally held distinction in history of philosophy between Cheng and Chu about Li (principle) school on the one hand and Lu and Wang about Xing (principle) school on the other. In fact, according to Wang’s criticisms which concentratedthe limits of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu, we see clearly that the problem originated from Wang’s confusion of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu with Chu’s personal ability of Kung Fu. Moreover, on the Kung Fu theoretical level, Wang’s criticisms confused Chu’s theory of Kung Fu procedure and ontology with pure Kung Fu theory. Consequently this confusion caused the lost of accuracy. Besides, there were other problems relating to criticism based on different interpretations of Pre-Qing Dynasty texts and various views on deviating editions of Dah Xue. This paper however holds the view that these differences caused by referring to ancient texts can be attributed to their differences concerning their attitudes towards the fundamental philosophical problems. It is on this view that this paper argues that the difference between Wang and Chu can be resolved by elaborating their differing problematics.
|
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 44
Jih-Ching Ho
何志 青
The Motivational Structure in Practical Reason
實踐理由之動機結構
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
A central issue in the contemporary philosophy of action focuses on the relation between reason and motivation: Internalism holds, while Externalism denies, that there is a necessary connection between reasons for action and motivational states. In 1980, Bernard Williams launched a powerful argument against Externalism in his article, “Internal and External Reasons,” which triggered influential debates in ethics, action theory, and theory of reason. Twenty years later Williams published “Some Further Notes on Internal and External Reasons” (2001), in which he refined his Humean theory so as to accommodate the many criticisms he had so far received. More importantly, he classified his major critics, in the past two decades, mainly into two groups, “the Kantian” and “the Aristotelian,” and raised objections to both. This paper explores the later development of the Kantian and the Aristotelian approaches, primarily in terms of the recent works of Christine Korsgaard and John McDowell, and argues to the effect that Williams’ objections are insufficient to refute the two approaches.
有關行動理由的哲學爭辯常聚焦於理由與動機之關連,內在論主張行動 理由與動機事實有必要之聯結,外在論則否認。1980 年,威廉斯發表論文 “Internal and External Reasons”,提出反對外在論的強力論證,引發了倫理 學、行動理論以及理由理論一連串深具影響力的辯論。二十年後,他發表 “Some Further Notes on Internal and External Reasons”(2001),精進他的休謨 理論以回應這些年來其他學者所提出的質詢;更重要的是,他將過去二十多 年來的主要批評歸類為兩種進路:「康德進路」以及「亞理斯多德進路」,並 且對二者提出強烈反對。本文檢視康德進路及亞理斯多德進路近來的可能發 展,其中包括柯思嘉和麥克道爾的哲學論述,以解釋並論證為何威廉斯的最 新論點不足以反駁此二進路。
|
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 44
林志 欽
Chih-Chin Lin
天台宗圓教法門形成之依據及其類別
The Reasoning and the Classification of Ways of Practice in Perfect-teaching in T’ien-t’ai Buddhism
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文是筆者有關天台宗圓教法門的系列論文之一。圓教是天台宗最高超 玄妙的法門,在實踐上是否適合於一般人之修行,學界有不同看法之爭論。此外,筆者研究發現,圓教法門有許多種,而各種的圓教法門其實並非同具 相同的特質,而有不同的定位、適合的根機與可達致的成就。要真正解決天台宗圓教法門的相關論題,就必須先完整地了解天台宗 所有的圓教法門究竟有哪些?其是否有不同的類別?各類法門所以成為 圓教法門的依據又為何?而此等議題學界仍未有相關著作成果。本文研究 之目的即在廣納所有的圓教法門,分析其所以成為圓教法門的理由,進而 加以分類,最終歸納出天台宗成立圓教法門之各種依據。透過此了解,將 有助於對圓教法門之全盤與正確地掌握,並開啟圓教法門爭論問題的解決 之端。經本文之研究所得,從智者大師著作釐析出之30 種圓教法門,其所以 成為圓教法門之根據有七類1.因持誦或由於是《法華經》所說而成為圓教 法門。2.以該法屬最高佛位故為圓教法門。3.與圓教之理相應故成為圓教法 門。4.以圓教之理論述之而使之成為圓教法門。5.本身為圓教法門之獨特代 表行法。6.作為圓教一心三觀之前行方便法門。7.作為圓教一心三觀之輔助 行法。
This paper is one of a series of my articles researching practice ways of “Perfect-teaching” (圓教) in T’ien-t’ai Buddhism. Practicing different ways of Perfect-teaching is the most unsurpassable and wonderful one among all dharma-gates. However, it has been an issue of debate among the academia whether these are suitable for average people to practice or not. Moreover, I realize that in fact, there are several ways to practice Perfect-teaching showing different characteristics. As a result, they have their different positions, are suitable for different people, and can reach different obtainments.In order to fully comprehend the related issues in ways of practice in Perfect-teaching, it is imperative to fully clarify aspects that are not well defined in academia. For example, different ways of practice, possibilities in classification of different ways, and justifications of different ways in Perfect-teaching should all be studied. Main objectives of this research are as follows: all ways of practice in Perfect-teaching will be collected, reasons of different ways of practice as such will be analyzed and classified, and then foundations of various ways in practicing Perfect-teaching will be concluded. Only after these works have been done can one gain a correct whole picture of the practices in Perfect-teaching which is the foundation to sort out different viewpoints of the Perfect-teaching.After analyzing thirty ways of practice in Perfect-teaching taught by Master Zhi-yi (智顗), seven characteristics or circumstances can be identified that make a certain practice under the Perfect-teaching:a. when recitation of the Saddharmapundarika Sutra (妙法蓮華經) is involved or it has been stated clearly in the scripture;b. when it belongs to the unsurpassed Buddha of Perfect-teaching;c. when it corresponds to the principles of the Perfect-teaching;d. when it is defined by the principle of Perfect-teaching;e. practices which are unique to the Perfect-teaching;f. those that are the prerequisites of “Threefold Contemplation in One Single Mind” (一心三觀,) which is the representative way of practice in Perfect-teaching; andg. those that are auxiliary to the “Threefold Contemplation in One Single Mind.”
|
|
|
5.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 44
胡 勇
Yong Hu
有無、本末與體用:王弼經典詮釋中的哲學創造
Being and Non-Being, Root and Branch, Substance and Function: The Philosophical Innovation in Wang Pi’s Interpretation of the Classics
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
魏晉玄學在中國哲學發展史上的重要性,很大程度上要歸功於其在大量 的經典詮釋活動中所展現出來的強大的哲學創造性,正是這種創造性為後來 印度佛教中國化以及宋明理學的產生提供了十分重要的思想資源和理論範 型。有無、本末和體用是王弼在經典詮釋中最重要的三組概念,也正是這三 個範疇充分體現了王弼哲學詮釋的創造性。這種創造性主要表現為三種形 式:一種為保持原概念的語言形式,卻改變其概念的內在涵義或邏輯,「有 無」是其代表;一種為原概念的形式和內涵保持不變,獲得改變的是其在文 本脈絡或意義結構中的地位,例如從邊緣到中心、從平等到支配,「本末」 是其代表;一種為創造或採用新的概念範疇作為理解框架或詮釋邏輯,從而獲得和先前完全不同的文本意義,甚至創造出新的文本結構,「體用」是最 好的說明。筆者本文擬從有無、本末和體用及其相互關係等四個方面來呈現 王弼哲學中的創造性所在。
The remarkable philosophical innovations revealed in the interpretations of the classics, which has on the one hand contributed to the Sinicization of Buddhism and to the development of Neo-Confucianism, and has provided valuable intellectual sources and theoretical models on the other, are probably the reason why metaphysics in Wei and Jin Dynasties played an important role in Chinese philosophy. The essence of Wang Pi’s philosophy consists in three pairs of concepts, being and non-being, root and branch, and substance and function, by which his philosophical innovation can be illustrated. I try to show Wang Pi’s philosophical innovation in three ways: i. from the concept of Being and Non-Being, a new connotation or logic can be found in the ancient concepts. ii, from the concept of root and branch, the logical sequence of the text can be clarified. iii, from the concept of substance and function, the process of rendering brand-new meaning by employing new conceptual categories as framework (or logic) is demonstrated. This essay attempts to show the philosophical innovation in Wang Pi’s philosophy through these three pairs of concepts.
|
|
|
6.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
黃文 宏
Wen-Hong Huang
論早期西田哲學中「自覺」的基本構造 ─以〈邏輯的理解與數理的理解〉 為線索
On The Basic Structure of Self-awareness in Early Nishida -In View of His Discussion of "Logical Understanding and Mathematical Understanding"
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
「自覺」是西田對「純粹經驗」的發展的一個邏輯性說明。本論文的 目的在依據西田〈邏輯的理解與數理的理解〉(1912)來思考西田早期的 「自覺」構造。在這裏有著西田對齊格瓦特與李克特的邏輯思想以及對羅 伊斯與戴德金的無限觀念的改造,我們將重點置於李克特的部分,看看西 田如何從自身的立場轉化了李克特對邏輯與數理的想法,將「邏輯」與「數 理」視為連續性的關係,乃至有所謂「由邏輯往數理」的說法,這形成了 後來西田《自覺中的直觀與反省》中自覺的第一個階段。筆者的論點在於,自覺的體系除了無限自我表象的系統之外,還必須包含著一個對「有+非 有」的全體的直覺,這個全體的直覺或體驗才是自覺體系的中心。在行文 上,我們先沿著〈邏輯的理解與數理的理解〉的思路,重構西田對「邏輯 的理解」(第二節)與「數理的理解」(第三節)的思考,在最後一節(第 四節),筆者試著透過《自覺中的直觀與反省》西田對「絕對自由意志」 的討論來補充之。在這裏,筆者將西田這種「全體的直覺」連結到海德格 對康德的「先驗想像力」的闡釋,西田與海德格都將重點置於經驗中的「無 而生有」的領域。西田所謂的「理解之前的理解」或「純粹經驗」指的就 是這種全體直覺。筆者個人的觀點也表達在這裏。
In this article, I attempt to throw some light on the basic structure of self-awareness (jikaku), which is one of the central concepts in the philosophy of Nishida, according to his early essay "Logical Understanding and Mathematical Understanding" published in 1912. Nishida puts forward a theory of logical development of experience which can be considered as the prototype of self-awareness. Here we can see Nishida's incorporation of ideas drawn from Rickert's and Sigwart’s logical thinking, Royce's self-representative system and Dedekind's definition of infinity into his own system of self-awareness. We focus on Nishida’s Rickert-interpretation. It is my view that only an infinite self-representative or a self-mirroring system cannot explain all of the aspects of Nishida's self-awareness for missing the intuition into the whole that inherent in this system. This ultimate whole which absolute free will intuits is the totality of being (on) and non-being (me on). I try to clarify its meaning according to Heidegger's interpretation of Kant’s productive imagination (produktive Einbildungskraft). The article is divided into four sections. After a brief introduction of the theme and method of the article (section one), I try to reconstruct Nishida's argumentations in logical understanding (section two) and mathematical understanding (section three). Finally in the last section (section four), I discuss some insights of Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant's productive imagination, and attempt to expound possible horizons opened by Nishida in his discussion of the "Absolute Free Will".
|
|
|
7.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
黃麗 綺
Li-Chi Huang
從「虛無」到「笑」 ─論尼采「永恆回歸」之概念
From “Nihilism” to “Laughing” -on Nietzsche’s doctrine of Eternal Recurrence
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
在尼采「上帝已死」的思想中,人失去其價值根源的有效性,在強力意 志所建構的生成世界中,人不再具有不變與永恆的意義與真理,而是由其 相對、暫時的效用與價值來理解存有的意義。本文即嘗試研究在尼采永恆回 歸學說中,是否提供了一種在「上帝已死」、傳統形上學之外對生命的理解 與評價的可能,並且由這個新的理解方式創造出在生成世界之內的新價值。 對此,本文所提出的假說為:永恆回歸的學說是人自我評價的方式,它的特 殊性在於透過此評價方式,一方面保住了生成世界的意義,另一方面在虛無 與生成中創造了存在的價值;而此方式在尼采哲學中呈顯為由從「虛無」到 「笑」的動態發展;在一切言說與理性之外,「笑」創造了一個由身體出發的新視角,它是人作為超人的意義。
In Nietzsche’s idea of “God is dead”, man has lost his validity in the origin of value, no longer holds the meaning and truth of constancy and eternity in the world of becoming built on “will to power”, but comprehends the meaning of existence through their relative and temporary validity and value. The present work attempts to seek in Nietzsche’s doctrine of eternal recurrence a possible comprehension and evaluation toward life other than “God is dead” or traditionalmetaphysics, and to create new values from the new way of understanding in the world of becoming. For this, the hypothesis addressed in the present workis: The doctrine of eternal recurrence is the manner of man’s self-evaluation. Its particularity lies in that, through this manner of evaluation, the meaning ofthe world of becoming is reserved on one hand, and the value of existence is created within nihilism and becoming on the other. This manner is presented inNietzsche’s philosophy as a dynamic development from “nihilism” to “laughing”. Beyond all language and rationality, “laughing” has created a new point ofview setting out from the body, and is the meaning of human as super-human.
|
|
|
8.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
陳 平坤
Chen Ping-Kun
幻有假名觀下的「物不遷」論辯
Dialectic of “Things Do Not Shift” under the View of “Naming of Illusory Existence”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文旨在論究僧肇依據幻有假名的佛教觀點,如何洞徹一切諸法的存 在底蘊,去開顯其中稱得上是究竟真實的內涵,以簡別於非真實的存在體 和認識構作物,從而為世人打通一條得以趣入「諸法實相」或「物性」的 思維道路。本文論述的主要典據是〈物不遷論〉和《注維摩詰經》的僧肇注解;而 所採取的進路,則為重視反省思維和闡釋義理的哲學研究進路。本文研究成果的主要重點如下:(1)涉及「物性」課題的「物不遷」論點只是一種假名言說。(2)「不遷」假說建立在取相分別之認知活動架構上。(3)「物不遷」雖不意謂就是諸法實相,但可當作趣入實相的一道 法門。(4)有關「物不遷」論據的探討,必須清楚辨明認識論問題思維脈絡 中的「[事]物」與存有論問題思維脈絡中的「[事]物」二者間的不同意 義分界,如此才能不管反對僧肇、還是贊同僧肇,在論據上都有比較圓滿的 說服力。
This paper aims to discuss how Sengzhao, basing on the Buddhist view of “naming of illusory existence”, acquires the insight into the existence of all dharmas and reveals the connotation of ultimate reality. Through this insight, he distinguishes true existence from insubstantial and epistemological existence and opens a thinking path to the “ultimate truth” or “nature of things”. The discussion is based mainly on Sengzhao's works: Treatise of Things Do Not Shift and Commentary to the Vimalakirti Nirdesa-Sutra. The approach focuses on self-reflection and the interpretation of his philosophy. The main conclusions drawn from this research include:(1) The viewpoint taken in Treatise of Things Do Not Shift involving “the nature of things” is a theory which establishes the concept of naming for the insubstantial existence.(2) The theory of “Not Shift” is established on the cognitive framework through which things are distinguished from the phenomena.(3) Although the concept, “Things Do Not Shift” does not imply that it is the ultimate truth, it can be seen as a path of exploring truth.(4) Regardless pro or con towards the views of Sengzhao, one must clearly distinguish the differences between the epistemological and ontological definitions of “Things” in order to discuss the divergent views of “Things Do Not Shift” and to be more convincing.
|
|
|
9.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
洪巳 軒
Szu-Hsuan Hung
論《管子》政治權威之形式與基礎 ─以〈權修〉為核心之探討
On The Forms and Bases of Political Authority in Guanzi ─A Research on “Quanxiu”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文將政治權威視為一種「命令─服從」的權力關係,並以呈現此種 關係之不同的性質為其「形式」,又以支撐起各種形式之原因為其「基礎」, 進而以此種角度探究《管子•權修》對於政治權威相關主張。結果本文發現, 〈權修〉篇中已然將道德與法律視為政治權威的形式,而且在法律形式中又 可以進一步區分出合法性、引誘性以及強制性等三種權威形式。再者,道德 形式的政治權威其基礎則是心理的,法律形式的政治權威則是以經濟與武力 為其基礎。
The present study treats political authority as a “command-obedience” relationship. This relationship appears in different “forms,” and each respective form is underpinned by a certain “base.” The author targets the forms and bases of political authority exposed in the chapter “Quanxiu” of Guanzi and finds that morality and law are typical forms of authority. From a more detailed analysis, the legal form is presented in the three distinctive dimensions: legitimate authority, induced authority, and coercive authority. The author further argues that the moral form has a mental base, whereas legal form is based on economy and force.
|
|
|