1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2013 >
Issue: 46
丁 福 寧
Paschal Fu-Ning Ting
斯多噶學派的視為己有(Oikeiōsis)
Stoics on Oikeiōsis
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
視為己有(oikeiōsis)概念是斯多噶學派倫理學的特色。這一概念在它 的泛神物質一元論的本體基礎建立上,宇宙是由神、人和自然世界共同組成 的一個完整的神聖實體。神聖理性掌握和管理宇宙整體。物質是唯一真實 的。人是由靈魂與身體結構起的有組織的整全個體。視為己有具有發展的歷 程。在第一階段,所有具有靈魂的動物,當依照自然生活,將自己自然狀態 中所有的視為己有,努力地保存自己。這是來自動物的本能。人在出生之始,如同動物依照本能生活,及至成年,理性方發展出來。在第二階段人的依照 自然生活當是依照理性生活。第二階段的視為己有是人當意識和認識到依自身的自然狀態的生活亦即追求至善和渡德行的生活。在第三階段,鑒於所有的人具有相同的理性,同屬於一個人類大家族,oikeiōsis 因而具有社會面 向,人要將他人的善視為己有。人對他者有責任,要愛人如己。本論文旨在論證斯多噶學派的視為己有之所以建立在泛神物質一元 論,因它反對任何形式的二元論,特別是柏拉圖的二元論;非物質世界和物 質世界之間的二元對立,及人的靈魂與身體之間的二元對立,甚至理性與非 理性之間的二元對立。斯多噶學派的視為己有概念不僅從宇宙是一整體,且 從人是有組織的整全個體探討人與自己,與他人,與自然世界的關係。這種 整全的概念正是柏拉圖否認的。
The concept of oikeiōsis is the characteristic of Stoic ethics. The ontological foundation of the oikeiōsis is based on its pantheistic material monism. Thecosmos is constituted by god (gods), humans and natural world as a complete divine substance. The whole cosmos is controlled and directed by the divinelogos. For the stoics, matter is the only true reality. Man is joined by soul and body as a structured wholistic self. The oikeiōsis is in developing processes.Living in accordance with nature and making all those belong to oneself as one’s own is the first stage of oikeiōsis at the moment of the birth of all the animals,including humans. At this stage animals attain their oikeiōsis by their instincts. At the beginning of its birth, a baby lives in agreement with its nature just as theway animals do. When it grows up, as its reason develops, living in accordance with nature turns out to be living in accordance with reason. The second stage ofoikeiōsis is then to attain summum bonum, leading a virtuous life, since man as rational being is capable of recognizing what his constitution is. Because allmen possess the same reason and belong to the same human family, oikeiōsis by nature has social dimension. At the third stage, a man should take intoaccount of his fellow’s well-being as his own oikeiōsis. A man should love the others as he loves himself.This paper tries to argue why the Stoics’ oikeiōsis concept based on its pantheistic material monism. The reason is its objection to any forms of dualism, especially the Platonic dualism; the dualistic opposition between the immaterial and material worlds, that of the psyche and body, and even that of rational and irrational. The Stoics’ oikeiōsis is not only based on its idea of the wholistic cosmos, but also found on that of the structured wholistic self; i.e. the psychophysical whole and the relations between a human being with itself, with the others, and with the natural world. This kind of wholistic ideas of the cosmos and of humans are what Plato denied.
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2013 >
Issue: 46
王文 方
Wen-Fang Wang
抽象與具體事物的區分
Concrete Objects Distinction
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
大多數當代哲學家認為,這個世界裡的事物可以被互相排斥而又共同窮 舉地區分成兩個類:一類是具體的事物類,另一類則是抽象的事物類。問題 在於:這兩類事物之間的區別究竟何在?Hoffman 與Rosenkrantz(2003)曾 經論證說,常見的、對於抽象/具體事物的區分方式存在著一些明顯的問 題,而他們主張以一種新穎的、在他們看來沒有問題的方式去作出這兩類事 物之間的區別。本論文旨在以他們批評其它區分時所使用的策略與標準而去 反對他們所提出的區分,並從而論證兩個要點。首先,本文論證說,抽象/ 具體事物之所以不容易(甚至不可能)找到一個可信的區分方式,原因相當 可能在於:我們對該區分所擁有的任何直覺都是許多不等價與/或混含的區 分互相混淆的結果。其次,本文論證說,抽象/具體事物的區分本身其實不 具有任何哲學上的重要性,因而是一個可以不必深究的問題。
Most contemporary philosophers believe that things in the world can be exhaustively and exclusively divided into two categories: abstract objects and concrete ones, and a main “problem” about this division is where exactly the line between these two categories should be drawn? Hoffman and Rosenkrantz (2003) argued that every ordinary distinction between these two categories was subject to some serious problems and counterexamples, and they therefore proposed a novel distinction that they believed to be completely unproblematic. This paper argues against their proposal by appealing to the same strategy and criterion that they set up for other proposals. This paper also argues for two other points. First, it argues that the fundamental reason why it is so hard (even impossible) to find “the right” distinction between abstract and concrete objects is that philosophers’ “intuition” about the distinction is nothing but the result of conflation and confusion of several non-equivalent and/or vague distinctions. Second, it argues that the problem of the distinction between abstract and concrete objects is of no philosophical significance; it is, therefore, a pseudo problem that need not be investigated at all.
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2013 >
Issue: 46
鄭喜 恆
Hsi-Heng Cheng
社群與個體:比較裴爾士早期與詹姆士的 實用主義真理觀與實在觀
The Community and the Individual: A Comparative Study of Peirce's Early and James's Pragmatic Views of Truth and Reality
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
裴爾士與詹姆士通常被並列為實用主義的共同創建者,但是兩人的實用 主義哲學實有相當的差異。本文從「個人探究」與「社群探究」這兩個層次 的區分入手來比較裴爾士早期與詹姆士的實用主義實在觀與真理觀、以及兩 人對於經驗探究方法的刻畫,並且指出裴爾士認為「真理」、「實在」與「經 驗探究方法」必須在社群探究層次上才能獲得恰當的闡釋,然而詹姆士堅持 從個人探究層次來闡釋這些觀念,這也可以解釋為何詹姆士的實用主義真理 觀曾經遭受到如此多的質疑與誤解。
Peirce and James have been regarded as co-founders of pragmatism, but their pragmatisms differ significantly. This paper examines and compares, onthe basis of the distinction between the levels of community and individual inquiry, Peirce’s early and James’s pragmatic views of truth, reality, and methodof inquiry; and points out that Peirce argues that these three notions could be satisfactorily explicated only on the level of community inquiry, whereas Jamesinsists on characterizing them on the level of individual inquiry─this can explain why James’s pragmatic view of truth has suffered severe objections and misunderstandings.
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2013 >
Issue: 46
蔡龍 九
Lung-Chiu Tsai
王陽明「知行合一」的再研議
A Revaluation of Wang Yang Ming’s “Zhi Hsin He Yi”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文欲釐清王陽明論述「知行合一」時的細部可議之處。當代前輩學者 們曾針對此「知行合一」問題提出多種看法,包含留意到「一念發動處」是 否適用於「知行合一」的教法。陳來先生針對此處提出「重行」之說,而李 明輝先生則以「意念屬行」的方式來解消此糾葛……等。針對前輩學者們的 研究成果,筆者欲補充說明有關「知行合一」與「意念」細部關聯,並在陽 明所認同的「知行合一」架構下,重新論說「善念」、「惡念」是否屬「行」 的問題,並針對前述兩位前輩學者的看法做出調和,且回歸陽明論說「知行合一」時的主要涵義。
I will focus upon the arguments of Wang Yang Ming’s theory of “Zhi Hsin He Yi”(知行合一) in this paper. Concerning this issue, scholars have proposed various interpretations, pondering whether “Yi Nian Fa Dong Chu” (一念發動處) is applicable to “Zhi Hsin He Yi.” For instance, Chen Lai accentuates “Chong Hsin” (重行) and argues that “Yi Nian Fa Dong Chu” is not applicable to “Zhi Hang He Yi.” Besides Li Ming Hui suggests that “Yi Nian”(意念) is also an “act” in “Zhi Hsin He Yi” so as to solve the entanglement. Inspired by these researches, I intend to analyze the intricate relationship between “Zhi Hang He Yi” and “Yi Nian.” Furthermore, I will reevaluate whether “Shan Nian”(善念) and “Er Nian”(惡念) can be categorized as an “act” in Wang Yang Ming’s theoretical framework. Finally, I attempt toassimilate the arguments proposed by Chen Lai and Li Ming Hui while returning to the core principle of Wang Yang Ming’s “Zhi Hsin He Yi.”
|
|
5.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2013 >
Issue: 46
陳平 坤
Ping-Kun Chen
聖嚴禪教之安心法門─「看話禪」與「無住」 思想是融貫的嗎?
The Dharma Approach for Pacifying the Mind in the Chan Teachings of Sheng Yen: Is the Chan Practice of “Huatou” Consistent with the Thought of “Non-Abiding”?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
「看話禪」是中華禪門的著名禪修方法,而「無住」則為《六祖壇經》 的根本思想。本論文參酌聖嚴法師所教授的看話禪法,嘗試探討「看話禪」 與「無住」思想是否融貫一致的問題,藉以針對看話禪法提出若干省思。本論文認為,看話禪法在義理上所預設的,是《楞伽經》中認為妄念可 斷而且應當斷除淨盡的思想,而不是《六祖壇經》中所說妄念不可斷而且不 應該起心動念要將它們斷除淨盡的思想。換言之,真正與看話禪法相融貫 的,是主張「捨念清淨」的如來藏心常住思想,而不是宣說「念念不住」的 般若法空無住思想;亦即是北宗禪思想,而不是南宗禪思想。因此,「看話 禪」作為一種禪修方法,在思想和方法一貫的意義下,更準確地說,乃是屬 於北宗禪修之道,而不是屬於南宗禪修之道。雖然「看話禪」也是解脫成佛 的方便法門之一,但是如果根據慧能在《六祖壇經》中所教禪法來看,則它 並不是貫徹始終能讓人究竟「安心」的修行法門;除非採取聖嚴教授看話禪 法時的類似辦法,亦即借助一些來自《六祖壇經》乃至般若經典的觀念,扣 緊「無住」思想而把它導入能夠發揮究竟安心效果的「念念不住」之禪觀實 踐活動中。
“Kanhua Chan”, normally known as the Chan practice of huatou, is a famous method in the Chinese Chan tradition, while “non-abiding” is a fundamental thought in the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. Based on the Chan method of huatou taught by Master Sheng Yen, this thesis tries to investigate whether there is consistence between the Chan practice of huatou and the thought of “non-abiding”, so as to put forward some critical comments on the Chan method of huatou. This thesis points out that the Chan practice of huatou presupposes the thought of Lankavatara Sutra that deluded thoughts can and should be eliminatedcompletely, rather than the thought as expressed by Huineng the Sixth Patriarch in the Platform Sutra that deluded thoughts need not be eliminated and thatone should not give rise to the thought of eliminating them completely. In other words, what is consistent with the Chan practice of huatou is the thoughtof ever-abiding mind of tathagata-garbha that advocates “the complete elimination of deluded thoughts,” rather than the prajna thought of non-abiding that advocates “non-abiding from one thought-moment to another,” so it is a method that follows the Chan principle of Northern School, rather than that of Southern School.Precisely speaking, therefore, the Chan method of huatou is, judged by the characteristics of its method, a Chan approach pertaining to the Northern School, not the Southern School. Although it is also one of the expedient Dharma methods for achieving liberation and buddhahood, it is, from the perspective of Huineng’s Chan teaching, not a method of practice that can truly help people pacify their mind ultimately, unless one adopts the manner Master Sheng Yen used in teaching the Chan practice of huatou, a manner that, based on some concepts derived from the prajna sutras and the Platform Sutra, strictly adheres to the thought of “non-abiding,” guiding it to the method of Chan practice that can ultimately bring about the effect of pacifying the mind.
|
|