1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 51
洪巳軒
Szu-Hsuan Hung
從《韓非子》「人設之勢」 論政治權力之鞏固
On the Consolidation of Political Power from the “Man-Made Shi” in Hanfeizi
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
如果政治權力是一種命令者有意圖的以各種方式促使他人服從其對於 有價值之資源的支配性分配活動,那麼如何建立政治的權力關係就成為最關 鍵的焦點。《韓非子》認為道德性的權力關係在理論上雖然可能卻不可行,是以主張透過法令的制定以作為權力的形式要件。並以賞、罰為政治權力的 實質要件,在以人情好利惡害為理論基礎下,透過權力者於發布命令時所挾 帶的教育、經濟與武力之優勢資源,認定權力對象會選擇放棄抵抗而採取服 從行為,權力關係由是建立。
Political power can be defined as “what the commanders purposefully do, by all means, to acquire public obedience to their allocation of resources.” Hanfeizi claims that a morality-based power relationship is theoretically possible, but not actually feasible. Instead, laws should be the core in a political power relationship. More specifically, by assuming that human beings are benefit-oriented and harm-aversive, commanders should make orders based on their advantages in education, economic status, and military power to punish and reward people. These orders will eventually replace resistance with obedience and construct a political power relationship.
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 51
鄧敦民
Duen-Min Deng
自然演繹法系統之比較
A Critical Comparison of Natural Deduction Systems
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
自然演繹法(natural deduction)是大多數基礎邏輯課程中所教的證明 系統,然而不同的教科書所採用的自然演繹法系統不盡相同,造成了教學與 學習上的困擾。特別是在量詞推論規則上,我們有兩套完全不同的系統。其 中一個系統(本文稱之為「Gentzen 系統」)使用了一條看起來較為複雜的 「存在個例化規則」(existential instantiation),而另一個系統(本文稱之為 「Copi-Kahane 系統」),則是用了一條看起來較為簡單的存在個例化規則。 雖然目前大部分中文邏輯教科書都採用了「Copi-Kahane 系統」的規則,然 而也有少數中英文基礎邏輯或中階邏輯教科書是採用「Gentzen 系統」。這造 成了教學上的一些問題,例如它也許會造成基礎邏輯與中階邏輯課程銜接上 的一些難度。在本文中,我將從邏輯教學的觀點來比較「Gentzen 系統」與 「Copi-Kahane 系統」的優劣,並對於我們應該採用哪一個系統來教學提出 我的建議。
Natural deduction is the logical system most commonly used in teaching elementary logic. However, different textbooks may adopt different versions of the natural deduction system, which can be quite annoying to many teachers and students of logic. More precisely, with regard to the inference rules for quantifiers, there are two completely different systems of natural deduction. One system (which I shall call the “Gentzen system”) has a rule of “existential instantiation” that looks pretty complicated, whilst the other system (which I shall call the “Copi-Kahane system”) has a much simpler rule for existential instantiation. Although most of the Chinese textbooks for elementary logic use the rules of the Copi-Kahane system, there are still some textbooks for elementary logic or intermediate logic which use the Gentzen system. This leads to some problems especially in teaching logic, as students may find it somehow difficult to learn intermediate logic (which usually use the Gentzen system) if what they learn in elementary logic is the Copi-Kahane system. In this paper, I shall critically compare the Gentzen system with the Copi-Kahane system to judge which one is better for teachingelementary logic.
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 51
韓曉華
Hiu-Wah Hon
論牟宗三對「哲學語言」的理解:
從牟譯《名理論》來看
Mou Zong-san on Philosophical Language
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文認為牟宗三先生重新翻譯維特根什坦的《名理論》之目的,固然 是吸納與消化萊布尼茲與羅素等的邏輯分析一套之思考於其《認識心之判批》 內,即對邏輯系統作出重新之疏解。然而,牟宗三先生以「分解地說」與「非 分解地說」來重新釐定維氏的「可說」與「不可說」,則表達了他對「哲學 語言」的理解。此「哲學語言」的理解至少具有兩重意義:一是牟宗三先生 所論「哲學」之可能根據;二是牟宗三先生以其獨特的「哲學語言」觀對 經典詮釋方案的可能依據。依此,梳理牟宗三先生的「哲學語言」觀,即具 有能理解牟宗三先生哲學思想的兩大重要工作(哲學思想和哲學詮釋)的 意義。
This paper argues that the purpose of Mou Zong-san’s retranslation of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is to incorporate Leibniz and Russell’s thoughts of logical analysis into his A Critique of the Cognitive Mind. In order to succeed, Mou held the distinction between “discriminating speech” and “undiscriminating speech” to express his view of “philosophical language” which has at least two meanings: First, the “philosophy” that Mou argues is based on this view. Second, Mou’s unique view of “philosophical language” is likely to be a basis of his interpretation of the classics. Therefore, clarifying Mou’s view of “philosophical language” will significantly enable us to understand the two crucial tasks (philosophical thinking and philosophical interpretations) of Mou’s philosophy.
|
|