1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2015 >
Issue: 50
傅皓政
Hao-Cheng Fu
論死亡之剝奪說
On Deprivation Account of Death
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
伊比鳩魯在〈給美諾西厄斯的信〉中提到死亡本身其實並沒有什麼,所 以根本無需懼怕,我認為在他的論證中潛藏三個非常重要的預設:(1)快樂 主義;(2)物理主義以及(3)存在要求。表面上看起來,伊比鳩魯的論證 似乎是成立的,由於人死亡之後就沒有任何感覺,也就不會有任何快樂或痛 苦的感受,所以,對死亡者本身而言,他顯然無法評斷死亡這個事件對自己 而言到底是好或不好。然而,沒有實際感覺到某個事件所帶來的痛苦經驗,對某人而言就沒有好或不好的評價嗎?事實不然。我在本篇論文中將試圖透 過剝奪說證明即使某人無法實際感受到某個事件對他而言是快樂或痛苦,該 事件對其本身而言是好或不好仍然是可以評價的,並且透過價值比較理論證成對某人而言,即使他沒有實際感受到該事件帶來的痛苦,我們仍然會同意 該事件對他而言確實造成傷害的論題。因此,伊比鳩魯認為死亡並沒有什麼 的論證並不成立。
In Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus contended that death is nothing to us since it is the deprivation of all sensations. I find that his argument implies at least three assumptions, which are hedonism, physicalism and existence requirement. At first glance, Epicurus’ argument seemed to be acceptable due to one is deprived all his sensations and unable to estimate whether death is good or bad for him when death comes. So, it is concluded that death is nothing to us. However, the question follows: is something really not bad for a person if one has no capacity to acquire the unpleasant experiences? I must say that the answer is ‘No’. In this essay, I will argue that something is bad for the people even they don’t have any unpleasant experience and most of us will agree that he is indeed harmed by the lack of pleasant experiences. Thus, Epicurus’ argument is implausible because the strong version of existence requirement is not justified.
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2015 >
Issue: 50
陳林
Lin Chen
朱子工夫思想的內在發展理路─以已發未發為視角
Intrinsic Development Clue on Chu Hsi’s Gong-fu Thought
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
朱子的工夫思想有著內在的發展理路。在「中和舊說」時期,朱子以體 用思維來處理已發未發問題,認為未發是體,是性;已發是用,是心。與此 心性論相對應,朱子提出了「先察識後涵養」的為學工夫思想。在「中和新 說」時期,朱子則以經驗現象中的時間先後和空間動靜來區分已發未發,把 未發理解為心之「思慮未萌、事物未至」的狀態、已發理解為心之「思慮已 萌、事物交至」的狀態,並認為「性為心之體、情為心之用,心統性情」。 與這種心性論相對應,朱子提出了「未發涵養,已發省察,敬貫通已發未發」 的為學工夫。而在晚年,朱子則以心在應事接物時是否順理而為來區分已發 未發,進而把已發未發融合貫通起來,不再執著已發未發之間的時間先後和 空間動靜的界限。由是,朱子晚年試圖打通涵養主敬工夫與格物窮理工夫,使之融合為一,強調涵養主敬與格物窮理相互滲透、相互發明,其工夫思想 也走向了更圓融之境。
Chu Hsi’s Gong-fu Thought has its intrinsic development clue. During the period of his ‘early doctrine of Mean,’ Chu Hsi dealt with the stirring and not stirring problems by thinking of entity and function; he considered that not stirring was entity and nature, while stirring was function and mind. Corresponding to the theory of mind and nature, Chu Hsi proposed the Studying Gong-fu Thought which means ‘first identifying the source of consciousness then cultivating with Heart.’ During the period of his ‘later doctrine of Mean,’ Chu Hsi made the distinction between the stirring and not stirring through chronological arrangement and motion and still in space in empirical phenomena, through which not stirring was interpreted as the state of ‘thinking no sprout and things without realizing,’ while stirring was interpreted as the state of ‘thinking sprout and things realized.’ He also considered that ‘nature’ was the entity of mind, and Qing was the function of mind, man's spiritual mentality consists of sense and sensibility. Corresponding to such theory of mind and nature, Chu Hsi proposed the Studying Gong-fu Thought which means that ‘self-restrain when not stirring, self-examinate when stirring, and respectfulness exists through stirring and not stirring.’ In his later years, Zhu Hsi made the distinction between the stirring and not stirring through minds responding thing following Li or not, and thus made possible the interaction between the stirring and not stirring. He did not insist on figuring out the boundary of chronological arrangement and motion and still in space between stirring and not stirring. Therefore, Zhu Hsi tried to unite respectfulness and Ge-Wu-Qiong-Li as a whole and emphasized that respectfulness and Ge-Wu-Qiong-Li should be interpenetrative, which makes his Gong-fu Thought be more harmonious.
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2015 >
Issue: 50
嚴瑋泓
Wei-Hung Yen
如何理解《六祖壇經》的倫理學型態?
How to Comprehend the Types of Ethical Theories of The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
中國佛教倫理思維的特色,在於將戒律的規範性轉移到對心性的重視,其道德實踐的終極目的乃透過排除遮蔽心性的煩惱與顯露清淨本性等進路而完成的。此種主張以禪宗為最,《六祖壇經》中「心平何勞持戒?行直何用修禪?」、「心地無非,自性戒」等說法,特別顯露了中國佛教倫理思維的特色。本文以《壇經》作為探究以禪宗為基礎的倫理學理路。首先從戒律與心性論的視角思考《壇經》的道德思考屬於哪種類型的倫理學?再者,反思《壇經》獨特的倫理思想型態是否與西方倫理學之理論有對話的可能性?一方面從《壇經》內在倫理型態思考其與德行倫理學的相似性,並論述其是否可能為某種形式的德行倫理學;二方面從禪宗哲學明心見性、解脫成佛之終極目的,思考是否可將《壇經》的倫理型態視為某種形式的結果主義?本文的研究成果顯示,《壇經》的倫理學型態包含了返回自性的理路與從緣起與無常所構築的世界觀所引發的「無所住」視角,據此產生一種認識的超越性而指向涅槃解脫。如是般從「認識」而「解脫」的理路提示著一種自律的倫理學型態,在此種型態中,道德主體藉著實踐智慧自發地出於善、完成善。若從理論的相似性來理解《壇經》的倫理學型態,我們最多只能謹慎地作出如下的結論:若從理論的相似性來看,《壇經》的倫理學型態約略可將其類比於德行倫理學與結果主義,甚至是義務論的主張,但若從其理論的內在理路看來,在理論的相似性之外,還必須從差異性來把握其倫理學型態。
This paper uses The Platform Sutra as the theoretical background for probing the ethics on which Chan Buddhism built its foundations. First of all, I analyze the type of ethics that the content of the The Platform Sutra can be said to display from the perspective of the view on precepts and mind-nature and subsequently offer my opinion on the similarities between virtue ethics and the type of ethics displayed in The Platform Sutra. Next, I give consideration to whether The Platform Sutra can be classified as a type of consequentialism when viewed in terms of the Chan Buddhist notion of instant revelation, along with the ultimate Buddhist aim of liberation from suffering and the attainment of Buddhahood. The outcome of this paper suggests that, The Platform Sutra offers a transcendental cognition aiming at Nirvāna and that its central theme of “non-abiding,” derived from the ethical perspective of this text which in turn is based upon both the theoretical journey of returning to mind-nature and a world view constructed around Dependent Origination and Impermanence. The theoretical journey that starts with “cognition” and culminates in “liberation” prompts an ethical pattern of autonomy, whereas the moral subject spontaneously perfects all virtues through the practical wisdom of proper conduct. When considering the ethics of The Platform Sutra it would be prudent to conclude only the following: when seen purely from the aspect of theoretical similarity, the ethical pattern of The Platform Sutra can be said to be roughly analogous to virtue ethics and consequentialism, and perhaps even to deontology. However, when the intrinsic theory of The Platform Sutra is taken into account, it is evident that apart from theoretical similarity, the view of differentiation still needs to be incorporated into the ethical equation of this text.
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2015 >
Issue: 50
楊植勝
Chih-Sheng Yang
愛的理性化─黑格爾哲學的理性與基督宗教的博愛
Love Becoming Reason
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文論證黑格爾哲學的理性概念是基督宗教博愛誡命的理性化。基督宗 教的博愛誡命是《聖經》的「新約」最重要的誡命;它超越卻實現「舊約」 裡的法律。它具有矛盾的特性,尤以「愛仇人」的命令為典型。但是它也因 此把有限的人提升到無限。黑格爾的理性概念在這些方面都與它相同:揚棄 律則,對人類知性表現為矛盾,並且被把握為屬於無限的領域。
This paper argues that the concept of reason in Hegel’s philosophy is the rationalization of the commandment of love in Christianity. The commandment of love is the greatest one in the New Testament of the Bible. Love surpasses but also fulfils the law of the Old Testament. There is contradiction in the commandment, which is most evident in the command ‘love for enemies.’ Nevertheless, only by love is the mortal raised to the divine and the infinite. Hegel’s reason has all of these characteristics: it sublates the law; it appears as something contradictory to human understanding; and it is comprehended as belonging to the infinite.
|
|