401.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2018 >
Issue: 56
王介成
Chieh-Cheng Wang
《墨子》身體觀探研─以「修身」為核心
On the Concept of Body in the Mozi
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文旨在從「修身」概念出發對《墨子》的身體觀進行探研。首先本文指出,《墨子》的身體乃由「形─心─氣」構成,此合於先秦諸子對人身體之理解。形即形軀;心則首重其認識義,同時也和「善」、「愛」、「志」、「性」有所關聯;氣在《墨子》中雖未具理論規模,但氣會隨志而現亦是我們了解〈所染〉的關鍵。基於這樣的身體形構我們可看出,《墨子》所修之身並非僅是生理形軀之身,而是一身心合一之身,透過修養(做工夫)學者的身心形態得以發生轉化。本文以為,所謂工夫不單限於內在的心性修養,只要能使人的思想、行為有所改變,無論是由內而外或由外而內的方法皆可稱為工夫。據此本文從《墨子》中析理出「去」、「反之身」、「立志」、「力事」、「學」、「辯」六種工夫。最後本文發現,《墨子》修身的目的與理想是成就墨家式的人才為天下興利除害,這樣的身體則內含「知無欲惡之身」、「力勇之身」與「交利之身」三種身體向度,此三種身體共構成《墨子》身體觀的最高理想。
This essay aims to discuss the concept of body in the Mozi through the investigation on self-cultivation. First of all, this essay tries to indicate that the body in the Mozi is constructed by‘xing (形, “body”) ─xin (心, “heart”) ─ qi ( 氣, “energy”)’which is in accord with the Pre-Qin thinkers’ understanding to the body. While xing refers to the flesh-bloody part of human being, the concept of xin focuses on the aspect of cognition and is closely related to the concept of shan (善, “goodness”), ai (愛, “love”), zhi (志, “will”) and xing. Despite the concept of qi has not been fully developed in the Mozi, it remains significant in understanding On Dyeing (〈所染〉). Based on this framework on the body, we could assert that the cultivated body which implied in the Mozi is not merely a physical body constituted by flesh and blood, but an integration of mind and body. Through the cultivation (gong-fu 工夫), the physical-mental state of the practitioners will then begin to transform. This essay reveals that the domain of gong-fu should not be restricted in the immanent cultivation of xin-xing ( 心性, “mental disposition”). Regardless of using the approaches of inside-out or outside-in, any practice could change one’s thought and behavior could be regarded as “gong-fu”. Thus, this essay generalizes six kinds of gong-fu from the Mozi, namely qu (去, “removing”), fan-zhi-shen (反之身, “self-reflecting and self-justificating”), li-zhi (立志, “determining”), li-shi (力事, “performing one’s duty”), xue (學, “learning”) and bian (辯, “debating”). This essay concludes that the purpose of self-cultivation on the Mozi is to establish an ideal model of Mohism, so as to promote benefits and eliminate harms for the society. This interpretation of body complies with three dimensions, which are zhi-wu-yu-e-zhi-shen (知無欲惡之身, “the body with intelligence neither desiring nor disliking anything”), li-yong-zhi-shen (力勇之身, “the body with power and bravery”) and jiao-li-zhi-shen (交利之身, “the body with mutual aid”).
|
|
|
402.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2018 >
Issue: 56
黃崇修
Chung-Hsiu Huang
《太極圖說》「中正」概念之工夫實踐還原:
以《管子》中靜形正言說為核心
The Concept of Moderation in Zhou Dun-Yi’s Annotations to Taijitu from Perspectives on Dingjing Thought in the Guanzi
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
一般認為周敦頤《太極圖說》或《通書》受到《中庸》及《易傳》影響,因此周敦頤定靜功夫思維自然而然也就被認定為來自《中庸》或《易傳》。不過筆者透過先前研究〈《管子》定靜思維對周敦頤定靜工夫之影響─以朱丹溪三重鬱說思維結構維視點〉之分析結果,發現《管子》之「中靜,形正,天仁地義」實踐論述系統,的確可以對應於「定之以中正仁義而主靜」言說。如此一來,《太極圖說》之中正概念便可以援用《管子•內業》「中靜形正」之觀點,而從另一個角度予以慎重地看待。所以筆者首先根據劉蕺山與牟宗三之詮釋觀點作一爬梳,之後再就日本學者荻原擴、岡田武彥之幾種觀點以為對照,從而發現《管子•內業》之「中靜形正」所開展之解釋格局,其不僅在概念上可以邏輯涵蓋荻原擴將中正解為「至公」;另一方面就哲學公案上又可滿足朱子所謂「中正仁義之外別無主靜一事」的形式要求。因為在「中靜形正」模式下,我們的確可以將周敦頤主靜說擺入中正概念之中,並且透過「內靜外敬」實踐模式擴展了周敦頤之工夫論述張力。同時在此思維結構下,由於「中靜」之無欲概念具有指涉本體義之可能,從而保全了周敦頤宇宙本體論的形上高度。
In general, people think Annotations to Taijitu or Tongshu (Penetrating the Scripture of Change) were influenced by Zhongyong and Commentary to The Book of Changes. Therefore, the dingjing skill and thought of Zhou Dun-Yi were also considered to be originated from Zhongyong or Commentary to The Book of Changes. However, based on my previous research “Influence of the Guanzi’s Dingjing Thought upon Zhou Dun-Yi’s dingjing Skill: From Perspectives of Thought and Structure of Zhu Dan-Xi’s Triad Melancholy Theory,” it showed that the implementation and discourse system of “with tranquility in mind and integrity in appearance, the world can enjoy benevolence and righteousness” in the Guanzi could certainly correspond to the argument of “one settles himself in moderation, benevolence and justice.” As a result, the concept of moderation in Annotations to Taijitu could interpret from the viewpoint of “tranquility in mind and integrity in appearance” in Neiye (Internal Work) of the Guanzi and be understood more concisely from another perspective.Therefore, the author first organized the interpretations of Liu Ji-Shan and Mo Zong-San, compared with several viewpoints of Japanese scholars Hiroshi Ogiwara and Takehiko Okada and achieve a possible explanation of “tranquility in mind and integrity in appearance” in Neiye. On the one hand, the concept could logically cover the argument of Ogiwara who interpreted moderation as “utmost righteousness.” On the other hand, it could satisfy the form of the so-called “no tranquility existing without moderation, benevolence and justice” of Zhuzi in philosophical documents. As in the mode of “tranquility in mind and integrity in appearance,” we could place the doctrine of emphasizing tranquility of Zhou Dun-Yi in the moderation concept and expand the strength of Zhou Dun-Yi’s theory of self-cultivation through the implementation mode of “inner tranquility and outer respect.” Thus, the concepts of “tranquility in mind” and “without desire” contain ontological significance, and are comparable to the cosmological discussion of Zhou Dun-yi.
|
|
|
403.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2018 >
Issue: 56
曾怡嘉
Yi-Jia Zeng
評Alexander Broadie, A History of Scottish Philosophy
A Review of Alexander Broadie’s A History of Scottish Philosophy
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
蘇格蘭哲學與思想史近年為英語學界之新興研究領域。身為該領域之先驅、蘇格蘭啟蒙研究首屈一指的學者,亞歷山大•布洛迪有鑑於此趨勢,以本書叩問「何謂蘇格蘭哲學」之根本問題,並提供讀者一部十分全面的哲學史著。布洛迪成功地在書中兼顧歷史與哲學的深度,闡明蘇格蘭哲學的本質與重要性。他主張蘇格蘭哲學必須放入歷史脈絡之中研究,因為它並不僅是一項哲學的志業,更是數世紀以來凝聚蘇格蘭民族的文化傳統。若缺少過去思想家們齊力建構此一智識文化,近代以降的科學、文學、政治與文化發展恐怕舉步維艱。本文旨在評論《蘇格蘭哲學史》;同時概覽布洛迪任教於格拉斯哥大學時從哲學到歷史的學術轉向。他對蘇格蘭哲學文化的投入值得當代歷史學家與哲學家關注,其作品開啟了思想史與哲學史對話的契機;文末將透過本書探討目前英語學界思想史與哲學史之互動關係。
Scottish philosophy and intellectual history have become the increasingly fashionable fields of academic studies. Alexander Broadie, one of the pioneers and an accomplished scholar of the Scottish Enlightenment, returns to the basic question, namely, “what is Scottish philosophy?”, and presents a comprehensive work on the history of Scottish philosophy. Broadie successfully elucidates the nature and significance of Scottish philosophy both historically and philosophically. He argues that Scottish philosophy must be studied in its historical context, for it is not only a philosophical enterprise but also a persistent tradition which has united the Scottish nation for centuries. The advancements in science, literature, politics, and culture in Scotland would be extremely unlikely, if not impossible, without such an intellectual culture established by thinkers in that tradition. This article is intended as a review of Broadie’s A History of Scottish Philosophy in the background of his shifting academic interests from philosophy to history while he holds the professorship in University of Glasgow. His commitment to Scottish philosophical culture deserves the attention of contemporary historians and philosophers, for his work opens up a space for
|
|
|
404.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 57
黃崇修
Chung-Hsiu Huang
張載「中正」概念研究─定靜工夫視點下之嘗試性解讀
A Study of the Concept of Moderation in Zhang Zai’s Philosophy
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文以先前研究周敦頤「聖人定之以中正仁義而主靜」之定靜工夫成果為切入點,試圖對張載《正蒙•中正》之義理結構進行工夫論式之分析研究。而筆者透過文本文獻分析及相關研究之佐證,發現到〈中正〉宏大之哲學思維中的確具有與周敦頤「中正仁義而主靜」相呼應之思維結構存在。其中筆者所持之論證要點在於〈中正〉文脈論述中事實上具有「中道」→「體正」→「四毋說」→「誠」→「安仁、好仁、惡不仁」之論述命題存在。而這些命題所涵蘊之義理及論述邏輯確實可與周敦頤「中正仁義而主靜」之實踐邏輯相通,並且于深層之義理透視下,張載中正概念可還原為「中靜形正」之根本形式。尤有甚者,張載在此實踐思維基礎下,更進一步透過《孟子•盡心》內容,巧妙地將儒學「仁義禮智信」概念帶入,從而讓我們可以在文本之抽絲剝繭中,看到張載論述「仁義」概念之後,繼而提出「篤信」→「好學」→「禮智」命題以推演「仁→義→信→禮→智」實踐結構之用心。由此我們可以知道,張載不僅呼應了周敦頤定靜工夫之論述內容,他在此架構下所連結開展出之儒學義理,更是〈中正〉重要之學術貢獻所在。
Based on the author’s previous research on the dingjing skill in Zhou Dun-Yi’s “a saint settles himself to moderation, benevolence and justice”. This paper attempts to investigate the argumentation and structures of Zhang Zai’s On Moderation. With the evidence of textual analysis and related research, I found that the magnificent philosophical thought of On Moderation certainly has thinking and structures corresponding with Zhou Dun-Yi’s “one settles himself to moderation, benevolence and justice.”The main idea of this paper is that the context of On Moderation in fact has the theses of “moderation”→ “etiquette”→ “four nos”→ “sincerity”→ “implementing benevolence at ease, being fond of benevolence and disliking cruelty.” The argumentation and logic of these theses truly interlinked with the practical logic of Zhou Dun-Yi’s “one settles himself to moderation, benevolence and justice.” Additionally, to take a look at its profound argumentation, the “moderation” concept of Zhang Zai could be restored to the original form of “tranquility in mind and integrity in appearance.” Furthermore, on the basis of the practical thought, Zhang Zai further skillfully introduced the concept of “benevolence, justice, courtesy, wisdom and sincerity” through Mencius Jinxin. Upon making a thorough investigation, we conclude Zhang Zai’s dedication of deducing the practical structure of “benevolence → justice → sincerity → courtesy → wisdom” from the theses of “sincere belief”→ “being studious”→ “courtesy and wisdom”. We can thus know that Zhang Zai not only responded to the content of the dingjing skill of Zhou Dun-Yi, but also made important academic contributions in elucidating the Confucian Philosophy.
|
|
|
405.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 57
蕭銘源
Ming-Yuan Hsiao
新傾向論與內在遮蓋者難題
New Dispositionalism and Intrinsic Fink Problems
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
史密斯(2003)建議,我們可以用傾向來理解其他可能性,並以此解消法蘭克福(1969)對其他可能性原則提出的挑戰,文獻上稱此進路為新傾向論。根據史密斯,在法蘭克福的案例中,行動者的其他可能性只是被干預者遮蓋,而不是被干預者消除。而這就顯示出,行動者仍舊保有其他可能性,法蘭克福的案例並不是其他可能性原則的反例。科恩與韓福德(2007)反對史密斯的論點,他們指出,在不承認內在遮蓋者的情況下,史密斯的新傾向論將無法解消某些法蘭克福式案例,對其他可能性原則的辯護並不全面,所以並不令人滿意。在這篇文章中,筆者將論證,科恩與韓福德對史密斯的批評並不完全成立,因為他們的批評預設了有爭議的傾向的條件句分析理論。
Smith (2003) proposes a dispositional account of alternative possibilities, called New Dispositionalism, to resist Frankfurt’s claim that moral responsibility does not require alternative possibilities (or the ability to do otherwise). He argues that, in Frankfurt’s case (1969), the agent’s alternative possibility is masked by the intervener, but it is nevertheless a present alternative possibility. Frankfurt’s case, hence, is not a genuine counterexample to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities at all. However, according to Cohen and Handfield (2007), Smith’s account is shown to be untenable for the reason that it does not work for all Frankfurt-type examples unless it is implausibly committed to intrinsic finks. In this paper, I argue that Cohen and Handfield’s criticism is not conclusive since it presupposes the debatable conditional analysis of dispositions.
|
|
|
406.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 57
Wim De Reu, C. Lynne Hong
魏家豪
What is the Wheelwright Bian Story About?
輪扁故事旨趣何在?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
《莊子•天道》中輪扁斲輪故事,看似旨在說明技藝之不可言傳性;若 連結到其他論及技藝與語言之《莊子》篇章來看,如此詮釋誠然有跡可循,而在現代學界也確實傾向以此脈絡來理解或應用輪扁之故事。鑒於《莊子• 天道》中,另有其他段落以「書」為題,本文擬從《莊子•天道》整章的脈 絡來探討輪扁故事之旨趣。本文將根據輪扁故事中有關書的問題,分別探 究:書的功能何在?為何批判書?書中少了什麼?依據《莊子•天道》提供 之線索探討上述諸問題時,可以發現輪扁之故事應視為政治論述之一環;換 言之,技藝與語言等議題,或許無關於其宏旨。
《莊子•天道》中輪扁斲輪故事,看似旨在說明技藝之不可言傳性;若連結到其他論及技藝與語言之《莊子》篇章來看,如此詮釋誠然有跡可循,而在現代學界也確實傾向以此脈絡來理解或應用輪扁之故事。鑒於《莊子•天道》中,另有其他段落以「書」為題,本文擬從《莊子•天道》整章的脈絡來探討輪扁故事之旨趣。本文將根據輪扁故事中有關書的問題,分別探究:書的功能何在?為何批判書?書中少了什麼?依據《莊子•天道》提供之線索探討上述諸問題時,可以發現輪扁之故事應視為政治論述之一環;換言之,技藝與語言等議題,或許無關於其宏旨。
|
|
|
407.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 58
洪巳軒
Szu-Hsuan Hung
墨子對於「兼愛」之論理與實踐精神
Mozi’s Argumentation and Practical Spirit of “ JianAi”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
以西方倫理學理論為基礎,進而嘗試系統性地建構墨子關於兼愛的理論是許多研究者採用的研究方式。然而,本文發現墨子在面對批評兼愛者與認同兼愛者之時,採用了不同的論說方式。面對批評者,墨子以反證其論點不能成立的辯論手法促使其認同兼愛;面對認同者,則採用互利原則以增強其實踐兼愛的信念。不過,用以擊破反對者論點的辯論內容以及增強實踐信念的互利原則,仍不足以窺見兼愛的實踐精神。本文從墨子實踐兼愛的相關文獻中,揣摩其精神境界:發現在此實踐精神中,兼愛本身即為價值根源,兼愛的行為本身是義;而不論利己或利他的效益,都只是兼愛行為所產生的附加價值。以兼愛的價值認同所引發的實際行動本身就是義,因現實環境之限制所產生的利與不利,皆無損於兼愛的實踐精神。
Mozi’s theory of Jian Ai was reconstructed under the form of western philosophy by many scholars. However, I discover that Mozi used different kinds of argumentations to justify Jian Ai concerning different audience. When facing the opponent, Mozi justified Jian Ai by refuting arguments. And he encouraged supporter’s faith through publicizing the principle of reciprocity. However, the practical spirit of Jian Ai is not elucidated by the principle of refutation and reciprocity. This research tries to figure out the practical spirit of Jian Ai from Mozi. My conclusion is that to practice Jian Ai is the value itself. Regardless of any additional benefit, action of Jian Ai is morality. Moral practice is originated from Jian Ai. Although the realistic benefit is limited by causality the practical spirit of Jian Ai is intact.
|
|
|
408.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 58
Foong-Ee Pong
馮鳳儀
The Affordance of the Graceful Fish Metaphor:
An Interdisciplinary Approach Exploring the Practical Dimension of the Zhuangzi
從「承給意義」論遊魚之喻
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
This article explains Zhuangzi’s philosophy by analyzing the metaphor of the graceful fish. I argue that to discover the essence of the graceful fish metaphor, we have to look into the relationship between the fish and the water in which it dwells. The article consists of five sections. First, I start by a brief review of common readings of the metaphors of the water and the fish and their insufficiency to relate to the idea of Dao/daos in the Zhuangzi. Second, I propose an interdisciplinary approach based on the notion of “affordance”─a substitute for “value/meaning”─that enables us to unveil the underlying key element pertaining to the image of the graceful fish: the ground. Third, an analysis of the graceful fish metaphor is presented after the explanation of affordance. Forth, I draw on the concept of vulnerability to explain the natural ability we are born with but buried due to a dominant completed heart-mind. I explain how vulnerability steers our way by comparing two images found in the Zhuangzi: infants vs. Hundun. Fifth, I sum up my findings and conclude that the Zhuangzi provides pragmatic advices for individuals─especially those who now live in a modern society that embrace social plurality─to live their lives to the fullest within any given social context by constantly adapting to the situation and therefore creatively exploring the limitless possibilities in the social world.
本文透過遊魚之喻以解釋《莊子》哲學。我提出要掌握遊魚之喻的意義,必須要探討魚與水之間的關係。本文共分五節。首先,我就既有的解讀方法,也就是分別論魚與論水的譬喻作一概要說明,並指出此一進路在解釋莊書中「道」的概念上的不足。接著,我提出「承給(承擔、給予)意義」,一個替代「價值/意義」的語辭,來發掘遊魚之喻所隱涵的關鍵:立足之地。在第三節,我循承給意義來進行關於遊魚之喻的解讀。第四節透過「脆弱性」的概念,來解釋我們在成心主導下所失去的一種自然能力。我也透過討論莊書中嬰兒與渾沌這兩個對比形象,來說明脆弱性的導引作用。最後,我總結,莊書提供深具實踐意義的建議,讓人─尤其是身處涵蘊多元價值之現代社會的你我─在所處情境中不懈因應,在任一既定社會脈絡內展開充實的生活,採取具創造性的態度去發掘社會世界中的無限可能性。
|
|
|
409.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 58
許從聖
Tsung-Sheng Hsu
氣相應、性偽合、參於天地─荀子的感通論建構
The Construction of Xunzi’s Correspondence Theory
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
《周易•咸卦》彖辭對二氣交感的歷程描述,蘊含自然創造與人文化成的雙重意指。從男女之間相感、親悅到結合的嫁娶行動與事件,發展為生生化育、延續恆久的夫婦對待倫理,也暗示男女媾合的生命繁衍與萬物化生的創造歷程,兩端雖非同質且不對稱,卻有微妙的聯繫與呼應關係,此為感通論的基本內容框架。值得注意的是,《荀子•大略》強調「夫婦之道」於倫理關係中的奠基性地位,實可與《周易•咸卦》所述感通論旨趣相互發明。本文進而深究感通在荀子思想所具有的多向視域與建構進程,擴及〈非相〉、〈性惡〉、〈禮論〉、〈天論〉等重要文獻,梳理氣、性、情、偽、度、參、神明等與感通相涉的核心詞義及相互關係,構成三層動態連貫的感通論體系:一,從「性偽之分」到「性偽合」的發展序階變化,敘明「自我感通」的具體實現歷程與實踐工夫;二,從「度己以繩」到「接人用抴」的推擴實踐,闡發「人我感通」的共在聯繫感受與倫理義涵;三,從「明於天人之分」到「參於天地」的關係轉化與辯證哲思,解明天地自然對人類創建文化生活的方向指引與智慧啟發。
The description of the flow of Qi (氣) in Yi Jing (Book Of Changes)’s “Xian Gua” includes emphasizes not only natural creation but also human culture. From the courting and marriage between men and women, develop the everlasting ethics of the relationship between husband and wife, and at the same time implying that even though they are not one in the same, there is a relationship between the relationship between males and females and also reproduction and change in the universe. This is the basic framework that makes up the theory of correspondence. It is worth noting that Xunzi “Talueh” is the first none Chinese writing to put an emphasises on couple’s ethics and in actually this correspondence theory and the Yi Jing “Xian Gua” are complementary.This paper delves Xunzi’s multidirectional approach to correspondence in the writings of Xunzi, such as: “Fei Xiang” (〈非相〉), “Xing E” (〈性惡〉), “Li Lun” (〈禮論〉) and “Tian Lun” (〈天論〉), and also the interaltionship between corresponce and Qi (氣), human nature, emotion (qing 情), man-made (wei 偽), empathy (du 度), participate (can 參), shen-ming (神明) and so on. Forming a dynamic and coherent correspondence theory system consisting of three layers in sequence: First, explain the concrete realization course and practical work of auto-affection; Second, elucidate the common feeling and ethical significance implied in the process of self-induction with others; Third, to tell the real human experience and response to the nature, the universe, and the ultimate reality.
|
|
|
410.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 58
林薰香
Shing-Shang Lin
論海德格對康德「敬重」之詮釋─《現象學基本問題》:
和《康德與形上學問題》之研究
On Heidegger’s Interpretation of Kant’s Achtung
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
康德於《單純理性限度內的宗教》(Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft,1793)指出人格性本身(die Persönlichkeit selbst)乃伴隨與之不可分的敬重之道德法則理念,在《實踐理性批判》(Kritik der praktischen Vernunft,1788)說明敬重是對法則的敬重,是一種通過理智發揮效用的情感,源自純粹實踐理性。海德格對情感與敬重的,於存有論上闡釋道德情感與人格性(海德格稱之為人的本質、主體性)的關係。本文主要討論海德格在《康德與形上學問題》(Kant und das Problem derMetaphysik,1929)與《現象學基本問題》(Die Grundfrage der Phänomenologie,1975)對康德的道德情感與敬重概念進行現象學式之詮釋,以瞭解海德格有關敬重的觀點,進而釐清海德格如何將敬重與人的本質建構關聯起來,藉以進一步瞭解敬重對人的本質與實際的自我之構成有何重要性。
In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason” (Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1793), Kant points out that personality itself (die Persönlichkeit selbst) always comes along with the idea of a moral law of respect (Achtung) which is intelligence affecting feeling caused only by pure practical. And Heidegger’s phenomenological interpretation of feeling and Achtung elucidates the ontological relation between moral feeling and personality (Heidegger calls this the essence of the human or subjectivity).This paper discusses Heidegger’s Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik and Die Grundfrage der Phänomenologie, specifically, the phenomenological interpretation of moral feeling and the concept of Achtung. The purpose of this paper is to understand how Heidegger relates Achtung to the essential constitution of being of the human, and thereby to grasp the significance of Achtung for the actual construction of the self.
|
|
|
411.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2019 >
Issue: 58
Kok Yong Lee
李國揚
Knowledge and Pragmatic Factors
知識與實用因素
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
The stakes-shifting cases suggest that pragmatic factors such as stakes play an important role in determining our intuitive judgments of whether or not S knows that p. This seems to be in conflict with intellectualism, according to which pragmatic factors in general should not be taken into account, when considering whether or not S knows that p. This paper develops a theory of judgments of knowledge status that reconciles intellectualism with our intuitive judgments regarding the stakes-shifting cases. I argue that pragmatic factors affect only our epistemic perspectives, i.e., the ways in which we evaluate S’s epistemic position. Therefore, pragmatic factors only have an indirect impact on our judgments of knowledge status.
在面對風險轉換案例的時候,一般人直覺上覺得,這些案例顯示,諸如風險這類的實用因素(pragmatic factors)對我們判斷某個主體是否擁有知識,扮演非常重要的角色。這個觀察似乎會跟智性主義(intellectualism)的主張有所衝突。根據智性主義,當我們判斷某個主體是否擁有知識的的時候,實用因素並不是需要考量的因素。這篇文章發展一個知識判斷理論,可以調和我們對風險轉換案例的直覺判斷跟智性主義的衝突。筆者將論證,實用因素不會直接影響我們的知識判斷,而只會通過影響我們的知性角度(epistemic perspective),間接地影響我們的知識判斷。
|
|
|
412.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 59
林修德
Hsiu-Te Lin
面對中國哲學研究立場分歧的一種嘗試
On Disagreements within Chinese Philosophy
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文的核心論題是中國哲學研究方法,本文企圖指出研究關懷的重要性,強調研究關懷的根本分歧將導致研究立場及其進路的不同,並進而衍生出歧異且難以交流的學術意見。研究關懷是更深層的研究動機,研究者能嘗試在彼此相異的研究關懷中找到某些共通點,從而藉此建構出公共性的研究關懷網絡及其分工整合機制。本文嘗試以「求真」做為公共的研究關懷,倡議中國哲學研究關懷得以從傳統「澄清文本意涵『是』什麼?」的模式中,進一步連結「做為普遍真理的中國哲學該『如何』在當代具體實踐?」 的探究。
The main topic of the paper concerns “research methodologies in Chinese philosophy.” It looks like we are talking about more than one methodology. In this paper, I point out that the researcher’s concern plays an important role in academic judgment. Different researchers’ concerns lead to different stances and methods. And different stances and methods in turn lead to different conclusions. What I coin as “the researcher’s concern” might be provisionally understood as a sort of meta-motivation (something that motivates motives). I suggest that among these different concerns we may seek something common. This something common could then be the basis for a public network, which functions as an integrative mechanism encompassing and addressing those different concerns. This paper argues that “seeking truth” should be the common concern of research. It further argues that with this as the basis, the traditional mode of research, being concerned with the meaning of the text, should be integrated with the present concern with how to practice Chinese philosophy after modernity.
|
|
|
413.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 59
林建德
Chien-Te Lin
傳統判教的哲學反思─試論學術與信仰間之可能平衡
A Philosophical Reflection on Traditional Pan Jiao
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
現代化客觀的佛教學術研究,易於挑戰乃至否定傳統佛教既有觀點,如不承認佛經皆佛親說(包括「大乘非佛說」),各式的「判教」在史學考證下亦難有立足之地,天台五時判教即是一例。本文試著對此作進一步探討:首先,說明信仰與學術兩種立場的對峙;其次,學術研究雖在知識層次占了上風,但僅能視為是「一種」理解而非「唯一」觀點;第三,佛法之「宗教性」 重於以方便善巧引渡不同根機眾生,如「五時」的「時」除了「時間順序」 外或也指「時節因緣」;第四,傳統判教仍具有意義,背有亦有一套信仰邏輯以建立自宗合理性基礎;第五,除了以正誤、真偽評斷,「權實」應是更理想的評價語彙。最後,對於佛教史理解,或可藉「多重佛史」持多元開放態度而非定於一說。如此,以「歷史之錯誤」斷言傳統判教,就客觀學術雖言之成理,但就信仰實踐而言卻是「宗教之正確」,所以即便是「錯誤」也會是「美麗的錯誤」。
It is easy for modern academic research to challenge and even reject the traditional views of Buddhism. The denial of certain sutras, and also the rejection of Mahayana Buddhism, are cases in point. Various Pan Jiao (判教, “doctrinal classifications”) are untenable under the inspection of historical and philological study; Wu Shi Jiao Pan in Tiantai Buddhism is an instance. This article attempts to present six points to further explore this. First, I argue that there is certainly a conflict between the orientation of academic research and the practice of faith. Second, in terms of level of knowledge, while the academic approach has the upper hand, it is not the sole valid perspective for understanding Buddhism. Third, the religiosity of Dharma is concerned with facilitating the extradition of different humans. In this sense, the timing in the “five-stage distinction” emphasizes causes and conditions no less than chronological order. Fourth, the traditional view toward Buddhist teachings still has its value, insofar as the logic of belief provides a rational basis for this view. Fifth, Quan (權) and Shi (實) form better evaluative standards and criteria than correctness and objectivity. Finally, this study argues that it is better to hold a pluralistic and open attitude for interpreting Buddhist history. In this way, the five-stage distinction, while a “historical distortion” for an objective scholar, is actually “religious correctness” for the Buddhist practitioner. Even if it is an error, it is a “beautiful error.”
|
|
|
414.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 59
林慈涵
Ci-Han Lin
《莊子》的判斷模式
The Two Modes of Judgment in Zhuangzi
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文試圖將隱含於《莊子》的「判斷模式」明朗化,並由此顯現出兩種主體性。「固化主體」以「成心」為用,「成心三元素」中的「我」啟動固化機制,開展出「成心→同一化標準→分判價值→自己」的判斷模式,呈現出「已成」與「固定」的存在狀態;「虛化主體」則是以「鏡心」為用,「鏡心三元素」中的「他者」讓主體能如實接收物本身,開展出「鏡心→差異化標準→分判價值→自然」的判斷模式,呈現出「虛空」與「流動」的存在狀態。兩種主體分別是莊子的批判與理想。
This paper brings to light the two types of subjectivity implied in Zhuangzi’s modes of judgment. A person who has a “Fixed Subject” or fixed sense of self uses chengxin, or a thought pattern developed over time to think. This thought pattern develops over three stages; the subjective self comes to be fixed from this process. Through this analysis, the mode of judgment can be schematized as “chengxin → standardization → value of judgment → self.” From this process the subject has an “established” and “fixed” existence. A person who is an “Empty Subject” uses jingxin or sees things as they actually are. This mode of judgment also undergoes a three-stage formation/development, in which “the other” allows the subject to apprehend reality as it is in itself. The steps in such a judgement are: “jingxin → standard of differentiation → value of judgment → ziran (something in itself).” Under this mode, the self is “empty” or selfless and eternally “flowing”. These two modes present the subjectivity that Zhuangzi rejects and prefers respectively.
|
|
|
415.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 59
58 期〈論海德格對康德「敬重」之詮釋─《現象學基本問題》和《康德與形上學問題》之研究〉一文作者提供之補充修正表
|
|
|
416.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 60
許瑞娟
Jui-Chuan Hsu
郭象注《莊》的詮釋意義─以「逍遙」為討論中心
An Interpretation of Guo Xiang’s Commentary on Zhuangzi
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文從兩方面重新思考郭象「逍遙」的意涵:首先,重新梳理、詮釋郭象《莊子注》;其次,試圖從高達美哲學詮釋學的重要概念分析郭象「逍遙」思想,挖掘郭象玄學的深層意蘊。郭象將自己的思想融入《莊子》中,提出一個人人皆有逍遙可能的理論,前提是人們必須忘掉性分之外者和慾念,接著要實現性分之內的部分,合此二者才是郭象所稱的逍遙。而聖王不將自己的慾念強加於民,因此能夠能引導眾人同獲逍遙。郭象玄學結合高深玄妙理論與現實應用,使得逍遙成為不論聖凡皆可奉行的境界,在這點上,郭象對道家思想盛行於魏晉功不可沒。
The article rethinks the meaning of “Xiaoyao” in Guo Xiang’s philosophy. First, I provide a novel interpretation of Guo Xiang’s Commentary on Zhuangzi. Then, I analyze his Commentary by applying key concepts in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. Guo Xiang incorporated Zhuangzi’s philosophy into his own. He believes that every individual can achieve “Xiaoyao,” but only if each person forgets both what is beyond the reach of one’s nature and desires not belonging to oneself. The Sage King does not impose his own ideas on the people, and thus he guides the people to achieve the state of “Xiaoyao.” Guo Xiang’s philosophy, by demonstrating that everyone can achieve “Xiaoyao” in articulating how the abstract reasoning in Zhuangzi has practical application, greatly contributed to the popularity of Taoist Philosophy.
|
|
|
417.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 60
陳士誠
Shih-Chen Chen
陸象山以二心為一之自我論人之善惡
Lu Xiang-Shan on Human Good and Evil by the Self of Two Minds in One
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文乃處理象山二心為一之說,以發掘其倫理學意涵及其哲學史根源。二心即是道心與人心;而所謂為一,乃表二心間之統一。依唐君毅之詮釋,視之為同一心之或升或降即表此統一;其次乃依象山文本,筆者視這統一乃表示為決意於或順或逆其本心間的人自我之概念,因而所謂順逆本心即只是人自我之心意識中的兩端緒而已。合此,人自我若順其本心即是其心之上升;反之,若違逆之,則是同一心之下降;在這自我概念下,即能說明人之道德規範與歸責之可能性。此本心與人心之分別,乃是對其概念進行先驗分析而至者,以便能揭示本心概念之特質。但此本心概念並未涵蓋人道德意識之整全,而只這整全中的一部分,因這概念未蘊含犯惡之可能性,所以未能說明犯惡者自身及對其惡之可能歸責。而這人自我之概念所表者乃其心意識之兩端,這才表道德意識之整全:本心是我的本心,我亦是那犯惡者,由是,這自我乃是善惡之可能性之最高主體。以上之分析乃在象山所引用的孟子文本中所建立者,也即是,象山二心為一之說,不論其倫理學意涵抑或其哲學史根源,乃藉孟子學之連結中所達至者。
In this paper I discuss Xiangshan’s unity of two minds in order to explore its ethical implications and the roots of its philosophical history. The two minds mean Dao mind and human mind, and the so-called one mind is the unity of the two. And this unity in my paper is regarded as the one-mind’s rise or fall by the interpretation of Tang Junyi(唐君毅), and as a concept of self to combine two minds in according to Xiangshan’s text, the unity is a self who makes a decision for or against his original mind, thus it is two beginnings of the same mind. In a word, the mind rises when the self’s decision conforms with his original mind, and the same mind falls when his decision violates it. In according to the concept of self the possibility of human’s moral norm and responsibility can be explained. The distinction between the two minds is established by a transcendental analysis of their respective conceptual content, and the point is to reveal the character of original mind. But the concept of original mind doesn’t demonstrate the whole but only a part of moral consciousness, because it doesn’t imply the possibility of evil and thus fails to explain the concept of evildoer and the possible responsibility for his evil. The concept of the self indicates the two beginnings of the human consciousness and as such constitute the whole of moral consciousness: the original mind is mine, and I am also the evildoer, thus the self is nothing but the ultimate subject for the possibility of good and evil. The above analysis is based on the Mencius text quoted by Xiangshan. That is, Xiangshan’s two minds in one, in both its ethical implications and philosophical history, is dependent on his interpretation of Mencius text.
|
|
|
418.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 60
黃崇修
Chung-Hsiu Huang
程伊川「義理」概念之實踐性展開─以「集義養氣」詮釋中的天人思想為視點
The Practical Significance of Cheng Yi’s Concept of “Yi and Li”: Interpreting “Cultivation of Qi and Accumulation of Yi” from the Perspective of the Heaven-Man Relationship
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文以朱子認同程伊川「不認義理為不仁」一段話作為問題意識開端,試圖透過對伊川義理的實踐性還原以鋪展伊川義理概念之深層意涵。因此筆者首先自問人為什麼不認義理就是不仁?此處所言義理是在什麼立場下與仁有關?如果與仁有關;義與理又是怎樣的邏輯關係而形成其道德實踐上的價值?針對以上諸問,本文一方面從縱貫面針對孔孟對「義」概念的解讀,從而釐清仁與義在孔孟思想中所具有之定位,另一方面在此基礎下,筆者橫向地就伊川理學背景,也就是周敦頤、張載、明道等師友言說中進行探究,繼而在這些宋代儒學建構過程線索中,找到伊川繼承先秦仁義思想特色與轉進軌跡。透過以上二階段之爬梳,本文聚焦伊川對孟子集義養氣之詮釋形式,試圖在其言說中看到伊川天人思想的特色。也就是說,即便伊川強調理一分殊而形成日後朱子理氣論之重要發展,但在宇宙論視野下,伊川思維結構中亦可能與周敦頤、張載一樣具有《管子》天仁地義思維模式之可能。因此筆者第四節中以「天仁地義」視野,試圖透視伊川義理概念在天仁之普遍性原則下,如何開展出一套地義之個體化原則。而此研究成果,將可回應韋政通先生質疑明道仁學消融主客關係從而學理上缺乏犧牲承擔、捨身取義之實踐問題。同時透過此次研究,我們發現到伊川所強調的義理概念的確能夠成為補充詮釋明道仁學道德實踐力之關鍵因素。此成果對於近年筆者探討「中正仁義」定止工夫之際,給予完整而厚實之系統連結。
Zhu Xi, remarkably, approved of Cheng Yi’s saying, “it is considered not benevolent (仁, “ren”) if one does not acknowledge justice (義, “yi”) and reason (理, “li”).” The purpose of this paper is to understand their agreement by explicating the deeper meaning of Cheng Yi’s concept of “yi and li” by reflecting on the practical aspects of this concept. Why is it not considered benevolent if one did not acknowledge yi and li? What sort of yi and li relates to ren? And finally, in their relation to ren, how do yi and li relate to one another to be morally significant?This paper will first interpret the notion of yi in Confucius and Mencius to clarify its relation to ren. Then, on this basis, it will examine the sayings of Cheng Yi’s neo-Confucian comtemporaries, in particular, the arguments of Zhou Dun-Yi, Zhang Zai, Cheng Hao, and Cheng Yi’s other teachers and friends. The purpose is to clarify, in the larger context of the development of neo-Confucianism, what Cheng Yi inherited from Pre-Qin thought on ren and yi, and what he transformed and elaborated.After the above preparation, this paper will discuss Cheng Yi’s interpretation of Mencius’ “cultivation of qi ( 氣, “energy” ) and the accumulation of yi” because the peculiarity of Cheng Yi’s theory of the Heaven-Man relationship comes to light in that interpretation. In other words, although Cheng Yi emphasized one principle with many manifestations which influenced the development of Zhu Xi’s doctrine of li and qi, from the perspective of cosmology, Cheng Yi’s framework, like Zhou Dun-Yi and Zhang Zai, also contains the potential of thinking Heaven as benevolent and humans as having the character of yi (i.e. the idea in Guanzi). Section four thus entertains this possibility and explores how Cheng Yi’s concept of “yi and li” can be articulated in terms of actualizing an individual principle of yi on earth with the universal principle of ren in Heaven in the background.The results of this study can address Wei Zheng-Tong’s critique that Cheng Hao’s doctrine of benevolence, in cancelling the subject-object relationship, neglects the practical question of when to sacrifice one’s life for the sake of yi. At the same time, “yi and li” in Cheng Yi crucially supplements and strengthens the understanding of how Cheng Hao’s doctrine of ren is effective as moral practice. This result provides the pivotal link that shows the systematic coherence of the samadhi skills “zhong-zheng(中正, “moderation”), ren, and yi.”
|
|
|
419.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 60
黃文宏
Wen-Hong Huang
論曾天從「理念的真理認識」的難題
On Zeng Tian-Zong’s “Aporia of the Knowledge of Ideal of Truth”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文處理曾天從在其所謂的「理念的真理認識」或「哲學認識」中,所遭遇到的三個難題,並試著根據他所提供的解決線索與保證,來為這些難題給出一個可能的解答。在筆者看來,這三個難題並不真的是難題,但是透過對「理念的真理認識」的這三個難題的思考,可以讓我們更了解曾天從的理念的真理認識的型態,以及其真理論的哲學體系的內容與方向。
This article examines three aporias (difficult problems) encountered by Zeng Tian-Zong (1910-2007) in his notion “Knowledge of Ideal of Truth” or “Philosophical Knowledge”, and proposes a possible answer to these problems based on the clues and guarantees he provides. On the reading proposed here, while these problems turn out to not be genuine difficulties, examination of these aporias in his knowledge of the ideal of truth, better elucidates the nature of his “Knowledge of Ideal of Truth” as well as the content and direction of his philosophical system of Aletheiology.
|
|
|
420.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2020 >
Issue: 60
楊德立
Tak-lap Yeung
解讀及評價:
Rolf-Peter Horstmann《康德之想像力》
Interpretation and evaluation
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
Rolf-Peter Horstmann 近作《康德之想像力》(Kant’s Power of Imagination),是針對「想像力」在康德學統下備受忽視的情況而作。這部102 頁的著作,仔細分析了《純粹理性批判》和《判斷力批判》中與想像力相關的內容,意圖從內部理順康德的想像力理論,並論證想像力在建構認知對象過程裡的獨特貢獻。他提出了「建構認知對象的兩階段模式」,闡明想像力在認知過程中獨一無二的功能與位置,並在此基礎上論證想像力是一種獨立、自足的認知能力。由於想像力是一種獨立認知能力,因此至少在理論哲學和知識論脈絡下,康德學者沒有忽視想像力的理由。
Rolf-Peter Horstmann’s recent work, Kant's Power of Imagination, is a response to the neglect of “the power of imagination” in the Kantian circle. In this 102-page book, Horstmann analyzes passages relevant to imagination in Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Judgment in detail, with the aim of making Kant’s theory of imagination coherent. He argues for the unique contribution of imagination in the context of the constitution of cognitive objects. Horstmann proposes a “two-stage model of constructing cognitive objects” in his examination of the irreplaceable function and special position of imagination in the cognitive process, and from this, he argues that imagination is an independent, self-standing cognitive faculty. Since imagination is an independent cognitive ability, at least in the context of theoretical philosophy and epistemology, Kant scholars have no reason to ignore it.
|
|
|