論 著 / articles |
1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
丁 福寧
Ting, Paschal Fu-Ning
亞理斯多德的靈魂不朽概念
Aristotle on the Immortality of the Soul
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
亞理斯多德的《論靈魂》一書探討所有有機體;植物、動物和人之所以 有生命的事實,以及它們分別可以有的活動。他將靈魂定義為生命的原理,靈魂是潛能中可以有生命的自然身體之所以活著的現實原理。有關靈魂不朽的問題是亞理斯多德思想中最不清楚的問題。唯可以明確 的即靈魂不朽的概念是他早期已遺失的著作中的核心問題。在早期著作中,他基本上受柏拉圖的影響,肯定靈魂不朽。在他的成熟期著作中,亞理斯多 德以物理學中的形質論,類比的用到靈魂與身體之間的是形式與質料之間關 係。人是一完整的人,靈魂不能分開、自立地存在,靈魂當與身體組合成一 完整的人。在形質論的框架下如何解釋在身體死亡後,靈魂仍有繼續存在的 可能,就成為哲學家不斷地探討的問題。在本文的探討中,我們指出亞理斯多德雖從沒有一系列有關靈魂不朽的 論證,但從他肯定理性才是人的靈魂,它是形上的簡單,是非物質的,它的 固有活動是非物質的活動,他肯定靈魂的本性是不朽的。理性非身體的形 式,它是在自身分開的實體,形質論不能用到理性與身體的關係。不同於植 物和動物的靈魂當與身體組合在一起,理性是不同類的靈魂。從理性是分開 的實體,它的活動與身體無關,它是非物質的,它因而是永恆和不朽的。亞 理斯多德的這種有關理性的靈魂的獨特本性和活動的特性有著濃厚的柏拉 圖色彩。本文旨在論證靈魂不朽的概念是亞理斯多德早期思想中的主要概 念,也是他一生所未曾放棄的。
Aristotle’s De anima is the first book which deals with all sorts of organism: the living facts of all the plants, animals and human beings, and their proper activities or functions respectively. Soul is defined as the vital principle which enables the natural bodies from having life in potency to be a living body in act.The problem regarding the immortality of the soul is altogether unclear in Aristotle’s writings. However, what is definite is that the concept of immortality of the soul is one of the central ideas in his early lost writings. At his early age, Aristotle was influenced by Plato and accepted the idea of the immortality of the soul. In his mature writings, Aristotle develops his own philosophy. When he speaks about psychology, he speaks in terms of the hylomorphism in the Physics. According to which, all the material substances are composed of form and matter, so is a man composed of soul and body. For Aristotle, as a man is a whole man, the soul cannot subsist separately in itself. In such a case, the possibility of the survival of the soul, after the death of body, becomes the repeated question on which philosophers have been trying to investigate.Aristotle never makes any demonstration of the immortality of the soul, as Plato does before him. Nevertheless, he affirms that the intellect is the very soul of human beings, being metaphysically simple and immaterial, and its activity is immaterial in nature. Intellect is not the form of body; it is a separable substance in its own right. In fact, hylomorphism cannot be referred to the relationship between intellect and body. Intellect is different from the vegetative and animal souls which are bound to be united with bodily organs, whereas intellect can be a separable substance in its own right. It is a different genos of soul. Since intellect is immaterial, its activities are independent from body. It is therefore eternal and immortal. The Aristotelian idea of the intellect is platonic in essence. Aristotle has never given up his early idea of the immortality of the soul throughout his whole life.
|
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
陳瑞 麟
Ruey-Lin Chen
牟宗三「科學開出論」的形上學困難 ─以儒家思想為本的中國文化 可以開出現代科學嗎?
Metaphysical Predicaments in Mao Zhongsan’s “Science Kei-Chu-Lun”: Could Modern Science Be Developed Out of Chinese Culture Based on Confucianism?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
「以儒家思想為本的中國文化可以接受西方現代科學嗎?」是二十世紀 新儒家企圖解決的一個核心問題。他們的解決方案是牟宗三著名的「科學開 出論」,亦即主張科學必須從中國文化內部、即儒家思想本身發展出來(開 出)。這套科學開出論預設了一個道德形上學的學說,包含一個「先驗道德 界」與「經驗現象界」的二分架構。本文爭論這套形上學不相容於現代科學 發展的形上學條件,因此無法支持科學開出論,進而我們可由此申論儒學與 中國傳統文化無能力發展出現代科學,雖然它已經產生中國傳統科學。最後 本文想指出,當代台灣哲學家要面對的問題不再是「中國文化與科學的關 係」,而是「在現代科技的衝擊下,什麼是中國文化」的新問題。
The key question which new Confucians in the twentieth century attempted to solve is “Can Confucianism-based Chinese culture adopt Western modernscience?” Their program is Mou Zhongsan’s distinguished “Kei-Chu-Lun,” which claims that modern science must be dialectically developed out of, but not be transplanted to, Confucianism-based Chinese culture. The theory presupposes a doctrine of moral metaphysics, which implies a dichotomy between “the kingdom of a priori morality” and “the kingdom of a posteriori phenomena”. In this paper, I argue that the metaphysical doctrine is incompatible to ontologicalconditions by which modern science could be produced. Therefore, it fails in supporting “Kei-Chu-Lun.” I also argue that Confucianism-based Chinese culturehas no capability to develop Western modern science, although it has produced Chinese traditional science. Finally, I want to point out that the key problemwith which contemporary philosophers in Taiwan should deal is rather “what is Chinese culture when it has been transformed by modern science and technology” than “what is the relationship between modern science and Chinese culture.”
|
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
徐 學庸
Hsu, Hsei-Yung
四個角色的理論 ─西塞羅《論義務》I, 105-125
The Theory of Four Personae -Cicero’s De Officiis I, 105-125
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
根據羅馬哲學家西塞羅《論義務》(De Officiis)的記載,西元前二世紀 的斯多葛學派的哲學家帕奈提烏斯(Panaetius),在論述合宜行為時提出四 個角色(personae)的理論(I, 105-125)。合宜行為的判定,根據帕奈提烏 斯的思想,必須依據一個人是否將其具有的四個角色扮演好,即理性,個人 特質,環境與運氣及選擇。這篇文章的論述主要有兩個目的:首先試探究帕 奈提烏斯的四個角色理論的內涵;其次是藉此理論的討論為當代一空洞的口 號「做自己」,提供一可能的內容充實。本文主要由三部分組成:第一部分 針對四個角色分別進行討論,並論及帕奈提烏斯的思想是受哪些哲學家或學 派的影響;第二部分主要處理的問題是:這四個角色如何能和諧運作?最後,能使四個角色和諧運作者會有什麼樣的生活,會是第三部分關注的焦點。
According to Cicero’s De Officiis, the Stoic philosopher Panaetius discusses the notion of proper conduct in terms of the theory of four personae, i.e. rationality,personal characteristics, circumstance and chance, and choice. The purpose of this paper is twofold: firstly, the content and connotation of the theory will beexplored; secondly, by virtue of the discussion of the theory, the contemporary content-free slogan ‘Be Yourself’ could hopefully be provided with substance.This paper therefore consists mainly of three parts: The first part of this paper explores the four personae respectively, and discusses the problem: WhetherPanaetius’s theory is his own creation or influenced by some other philosophers? The second part deals with the issue: How can the four personae harmoniouslywork together? The third part focuses on the problem: What kind of life will one have, when he can make his four personae harmoniously work together?
|
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
孫效 智
Johannes Hsiao-chih Sun
論儒家現實擁有判準理論 與等差之愛原則的人類胚胎觀點
Confucian Accounts of Personhood and the Moral Status of Human Embryos
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文旨在探討當代儒家在位格理論上所提出的「儒家現實擁有判準」 理論及「等差之愛」原則,以及它們對於人類胚胎的觀點。「儒家現實擁有 判準」(Confucian actual-possession criteria)是區別位格(person)與非位格 (non-person)的一種理論,該理論及由之衍伸出來的「儒家位格漸進論」 (Confucian gradualism)、「儒家社會性位格論」(Confucian social personhood) 是本文首先要加以探討的幾個儒家位格理論,這些理論對於人該如何看待人 類胚胎乃至如何看待人提出了非常具爭議性而值得探討的看法。其次,本文 進一步要探討訴諸儒家「等差之愛」原則以證立「為了醫學進步及人類福祉 的理由而許可傷害人類胚胎」的主張。本文主張,無論「儒家現實擁有判準」、「儒家位格漸進論」或「儒家 社會性位格論」等概念,都無法從儒家思想中推導出來,而且也與儒家思 想互不相容。至於以儒家「等差之愛」原則來證立犧牲胚胎的作法,不僅 證據薄弱,從「不傷害」(first, do no harm)原則的角度來看,更是站不住 腳的。
The aim of this article is to critically explore both the theories of “Confucian actual-possession criteria” and “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” and their views on the moral status of human embryos. “Confucian actual-possession criteria”, as accounts proposed for distinguishing person from non-person, and related ideas of Confucian gradualism and Confucian social personhood are discussed first. Their views on the moral status of human embryos are significant, though controversial, and therefore worthy of in-depth analysis. The article discusses then the claim appealing to “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” to justify the destructive use of human embryos for the sake of the welfare of humankind.I argue in this paper that none of the aforementioned Confucian theories of personhood is derivable from nor compatible with Confucianism. Moreover, the justification of sacrificing embryos based on “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” is not only ungrounded but also untenable from the viewpoint of the basic principle of non-maleficence.
|
|
|
書 評 / book reviews |
5.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
王文 方
Wen-fang Wang
N.J. Smith 之《含混性與真之程度》
Nicholas J. J. Smith, Vagueness and Degrees of Truth
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
論 著 / articles |
6.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
彭孟 堯
Eric Peng
蒼涼蘊涵與天擇論證 ─人類是不理性的嗎?
The Bleak Implication and the Selection Argument -Are Humans Irrational?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文主旨在於探討並拒斥在1980 年代一群認知科學家依其研究結果而 主張的「蒼涼蘊涵」:人類是不理性的。本文首先解析這些認知科學家建立 此結論時所依據的前提,再逐一反駁。另一方面,Stich 檢討了文獻上訴諸 天擇演化以辯護人類理性的主張,並重新建構了「天擇論證」,然後提出三 件反駁。本文檢視Stich 這三件反駁,並藉由指出其思考不足之處,來修改 天擇演化論證,以試圖說明理性與心理推想系統之間的關聯,並重新開啟以 演化理論辯護人類理性之路。
This essay is to reject the so-called “bleak implication”—human beings are irrational in nature, which was said to follow from experiments on human reasoning in the eighties. The rejection is advocated by way of re-constructing for the cognitive scientists their argument for the bleak implication. Meanwhile, Stich constructs what he calls the “Selection argument” for human rationality, and then rejects it. This essay examines his arguments and argues that his objections are defective. This essay then revises the selection argument to show how human rationality is connected to the design and performance of human reasoning mechanism with the hope that we may re-open the possibility of defending human rationality from an evolutionary point of view.
|
|
|
7.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
王志 輝
Zhi-Hue Wang
亞理斯多德論「善」 及「存有」之同名異義
Aristotle on the Homonymy of “Goodness” and “Being”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
亞理斯多德對柏拉圖哲學最常提出的控訴,便是它過於簡化。在他看 來,柏拉圖也分享了蘇格拉底關於字詞與定義的假定。蘇格拉底認為,當問 及「何謂F?」(正義、勇敢等)的問題時,總是可以找到某個關於「F」的 單一定義。然而,亞理斯多德卻宣稱,某些哲學上關鍵的字詞與概念,例如 「存有」、「善」、「正義」、「友情」等等,乃是同名異義或者以各種方式來述 說的。因此,在他眼中,柏拉圖正犯了過度簡化的問題:柏拉圖錯誤地忽略 了同名異義,並誤以為相同的字詞總是以相同方式而述說的。因而我們必須 放棄柏拉圖對於「存有」、「善」以及「正義」的說明。然而Ch. Shields 卻認為,亞理斯多德哲學中的兩個關鍵概念─「存 有」以及「善」─是無法被證明為同名異義的;雖然亞理斯多德經常提出 對於「存有」以及「善」之同名異義的警示,對於兩者同名異義的論證卻是 失敗的。Shields 宣稱,根本沒有一套可用以辯護亞理斯多德有關「存有」 之同名異義的學說,因為這個學說根本是錯誤的;他也認為,「善」之同名 異義同樣也無法被建立,因為它是從可疑的「存有」之同名異義學說推導而 來。本文將展示,Shields 對於亞理斯多德有關「存有」與「善」同名異義 論證之批判並不成功。本文將藉這種方式重構亞理斯多德嘗試建立「存有」 與「善」之同名異義的基本架構。
The criticism of Plato most often leveled by Aristotle against Plato is that his philosophy is oversimplified. On his view, Plato shares the Socratic assumption about words and definitions. When asked “What is F?” (justice, courage, etc.), Socrates thinks that a single definition can always be found. However, Aristotle claims that some of the crucial words and concepts in his philosophy, such as “being,” “goodness,” “justice,” and “friendship,” are homonymous or multivocal (said in many ways). In his eyes, therefore, Plato oversimplifies the issue: Plato mistakenly ignores homonymy and simply supposes that the same word is always said in the same way. Put briefly, the Platonic accounts of “being, ” “goodness, ” and “justice” should be rejected because homonymy and multivocity are ignored.However, Ch. Shields holds that two of the crucial concepts of the Aristotelian philosophy – “being” and “goodness” – cannot be shown to be homonymous; although Aristotle often issues special warnings against the homonymy of “being” and “goodness, ” all of his arguments fail. Shields claims that there is no defensible Aristotelian doctrine about the homonymy of “being” because this doctrine is false; he also thinks that the homonymy of “goodness” cannot be established because it is inferred from the problematical doctrine of the homonymy of “being”. In this article, I shall show that Shields’ critiques of Aristotle’s arguments for the homonymy of “being” and “goodness” do not succeed. In this way, I shall reconstruct the basic framework of Aristotle’s attempt to establish the homonymy of “being” and “goodness”.
|
|
|
8.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
蔡龍 九
Lung-Chiu Tsai
王陽明「理」的內容 與「心即理」的適用範圍
The Content of Wang Yangming’s “Li” and the Proper Application Range of “Xin Ji Li”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
陽明的「理」概念在他的立教宗旨中明顯偏向「德性方面」,然而他論 述「理」的內容時對「非德性方面」亦曾提及,並且欲亦以「心」說之;筆 者於本文中除考察他對此兩種方向之「理」的論述內容之外,在個人的分類 中,談論出他的「心即理」教法可適用於「德性意義之理」,並且指出陽明 若勉強地以「心」談論「非德性意義之理」時所遭受的困難以及不通暢之處。 於本文中,筆者除了對陽明的「理」概念內容作出分類及釐清之外,並論述 其「心即理」的適用範圍。
In Wang Yangming’s theoretical premises, the concept of “Li” tends to relate to “the moral domain,” though its affinity with “the amoral domain” is also suggested. He furthermore expounds this concept of “Li” by the notion of “Xin.” In this paper I investigate Wang’s twin-track approach upon “Li,” and propose that his tenet of “Xin Ji Li” suits a moral conception of “Li.” I also point out the predicaments Wang encounters when carring out a forced application of the notion of “Xin” in expounding an amoral conception of “Li.” In addition to my attempts to categorize and elucidate Wang’s concept of “Li,” the proper application range of “Xin Ji Li” will also be explored.
|
|
|
9.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
蘇慶 輝
Ching-Hui Su
論瑣碎性結果與對條件化的限制
On the Triviality Results and the Restriction on Conditionalization
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
路易士的「瑣碎性結果」論證被視為能有力地拒斥對於條件句採行的真 值條件語意論,因為如果接受古典的機率理論、條件化,以及史東內克對條 件句的論點,我們可以推導出一個荒謬的結果─對任意的命題A 與C 而 言,p(C/A) = p(C)。本文試圖回應他的「瑣碎性結果」論證,並指出:無論 我們以條件機率如何定義自然語言的任何二位連接詞,瑣碎性結果仍會出 現。因此,放棄史東內克對條件句的論點不是避開瑣碎性結果的唯一方式; 相反的,我們可以對「條件化」做適當的限制來避免瑣碎性結果。
Lewis’s arguments for the triviality results are considered as a powerful rejection of the truth-conditional accounts of conditionals: the absurd consequencethat for any propositions A and C, p(C/A) = p(C) is derived from the classical probability calculus, conditionalization, and Stalnaker’s semantics for conditionals.In this paper, it is argued that the triviality results need not be a threat to Stalnaker’s semantics, for we can derive a generalized triviality result from the classicalprobability theory and any thesis about conditional probability. The lesson, I suggest, is that we should reconsider the classical probability theory or set a restriction on the rule of conditionalization such that the triviality results may be avoided.
|
|
|