121.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
黃懿梅
Yih-Mei Huang
批判思考與教育的關係 -- 論McPeck 與Siegel 的相關理論
Critical Thinking and Education
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
批判思考( critical thinking ) 在教育中扮演了相當重要的角 色。但是批判思考與教育之間的關係到底是什麼,不同的教育哲 學家有不同的看法。John E. McPeck '認為批判的思考是教育的 必要條件,教育邏輯地蘊涵( logically entails ) 了批判的思考; 而 Harvey Siegel '主張批判的思考不但與教育的內容、方法有著密 切的關聯,而且更重要的是,批判的思考是教育的目的 ( ideal ) ,但二者之間的關係不是邏輯涵蘊的。本篇論文就是要 對這兩個相競爭的理論做一探討,企圖找出批判思考與教育之間一個較合理的關連。在討論這個問題之前,我們先來看看什麼是批判的思考,然 後再來探討它與教育之間的關係。所以,在第二節中,介紹 McPeck 對批判思考的看法, 以及他如何論證批判思考與教育之 間的關係是邏輯關係。在第三節中,介紹 Siegel 的批判思考的概 念是什麼;以及他如何證成批判思考是教育的目的。在第四節 中,試圖去(1) 論證: McPeck 的證明批判思考是教育的必要條件 的論證中,由於前提裡所包含的「知識」概念有歧義,因此不能 保證他的結論; (2) 論證Seigel 證成批判思考是教育目的的四個理 由,同樣可以用來證成「關心是教育的目的」的理由,可見這四 個理由是不充足的; (3) 雖然批判思考與教育之間的關係不是邏輯 涵蘊的關係'而用相同的理由也可以證成關心是教育的目的,但 上面的論證也沒有否認批判思考是教育的目的,更何況,我們發 現即使我們以「關心」做為教育的目的時,我們仍會需要使用批 判的思考,來衡量、判斷我們應以何種合適的方式來關心他人。 所以我們還是認為,批判思考與教育仍有密切的關係'批判思考 是教育眾多目的之一,而不是教育的唯一目的;但或許是教育目 的中最重要的一個。
In this paper we discuss the relation between critical thinking and education. J. McPeck thought that critical thinking is the necessary condition for education. Education logically entails critical thinking. But H. Siegel believes that critical thinking is the ideal of education. (1) We argue that because the concept of 'knowledge', which is in the firstpremise of McPeck's argument, is ambiguous, so the truth of conlusion that education logically entails critical thinking cannot be warranted. (2) Then we argue that the four reasons which Siegel used to justify the proposition that critical thinking is the ideal of education could also be used to justify the proposition which states “care is theideal of education." (3) But we did not deny that critical thinking as the ideal of education, and even when we believe that care is the ideal of education, we still need critical thinking to measure what is the appropriate manner to care someone. Therefore, critical thinking still is one of the ideals of education, and might be the most important ideal of education.
|
|
|
122.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
洪成完
Cheng-Uan Hung
思想追蹤: 由初階邏輯至哲理邏輯,一些層面的探討
Tracing back philosophical conceptions of logic from the first-order logic to the philosophical logic
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
我們指出古典邏輯最易被忽視的一些概念和原理,針對 Quine 在 1943 - 1970 年代對模態的命題邏輯,述詞邏輯之批評、挑擊, 反思模態邏輯之一些基礎思想。為清楚交代,我們提出形式的表 示法,提出一些問題,供邏輯-哲學一語言哲學之研究者參考。 其次,對數理邏輯/形式邏輯之概念、方法作一鳥轍,提示這些 邏輯與哲理邏輯在研究題材、方向、切入法上之差異,最後表述 作者對哲理邏輯的遠景。
This is one of the essays on the reflection on logic. The author points out some well-known concepts and principles, with their limitation in application, of the classicallogic are almost neglected by most users, in particular, in the areas of information processing and engineering, philosophical and linguistic analysis , and even in (college levelof) mathematical education in the present Taiwan.In retrospect to Quine's critique (during 1943-1970), which is still influential in Taiwan, ofthe propositional and the quantified modal logic, the author first, reflects on and then reformulates some conceptually foundational thought (central claims) in modallogic, and furthermore, propose some philosophico-technical problems in the boderlinedarea of (philosophical) logic, philosophy, philosophy of language, third, the author presents a bird-eye view on the source of the main concepts concerning inquiry in philosophical logic, the conceptions in and approaches to mathematical / formallogic and philosophical logic. Finally, his own perspectives on philosophical logic and its application.
|
|
|
123.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
釋恆清
Hang-Ching Shih
「批判佛教」 駁議
The Refutation on Critical Buddhism
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
十幾年前,日本駒澤大學的持谷憲昭和松本史朗兩位教授掀 起一陣「批判佛教」風潮,引起日本、北美、國內佛教界和學術 界的興趣和回應。 「 批判佛教」內容含蓋四大層面: (1) 佛教教 義; (2)社會批判; (3)佛教宗派; (4)哲學反省。 其主要議題包括: 如來藏(佛性)思想、實體論、業力論、日本天臺宗的本覺思 想、融合思想、社會歧視、日本軍國主義、場所哲學等等。由於「批判佛教」討論的議題多元而廣泛,非本文所能涵 蓋,故僅就「佛教教義」和「社會批判」兩個層面加以探討。有 關佛教教義方面,榜谷和松本均認為如來藏思想是「偽佛教」 ' 因為它違背二個佛教基本教義一一「緣起」和「無我」 。 松本稱 帶有神我思想的如來藏為「基體論」 (dhatu-vada) 。 本文則依 據〈勝鬢經〉、〈大般涅槃經〉、〈實性論〉和〈佛性論〉等經論中的 來藏(佛性)說加以反駁。在社會批判方面, I 批判佛教J 認為日本社會中的歧視和不 正義乃是來自「和」思想,而「和」思想是如來藏思想的產物。 本文則舉例證明如來藏(佛性)思想正是實踐社會中平等、正義 的理論基礎。
The so-called Critical Buddhism was originated by two Buddhist scholars at Komazawa University: Hakamaya Noriaki and Matsumoto Shiro. It stirred up great controversyby its claims that the teachings of Tathāgatagarbha, Buddhanature, original erllightenment, and the philosophy of Kyoto School are not Buddhist, and aroused great interest and responses from Buddhists and Buddhologist in Japan, North America and Taiwan.The criticism of Hakamaya and Matsumoto aimed at a number of different targets which touched on four levels: Buddhological, sectarian, social criticism, and philosophical. The main issues include: Tathāgatagarbha thought, Dhātu-vāda, Karma, original enlightenment, “Wa" thought, Buddhism," social discrimination, etc.These issues are too broad to be dealt with in a short article; therefore, this article focuses only on the issues in Buddhist doctrine and social discrimination. Hakamaya and Matsumoto maintain that Tathāgatagarbha thought goes against the most basic Buddhist teachings of causality (pratityasamutpada) and non-self (anātman) , and thus is a form of dhatu-vada. The first half portion of this article, based on the 'Srīmālā-devi Sūtra, Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, Ratnagotravibhāga 'Sāstra and Buddha-nature Treatise, refutes their claims.At the level of social criticism, Critical Buddhism blamed the idea of Wa (harmony), which derives from Tathāgatagarbha thought, for social discrimination and injustice. Thesecond half of this article refutes this claim by giving exampIes in which Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha-nature) thought is in fact the bases of social equality, freedom and justice.
|
|
|
124.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
林義正
Yih-Jing Lin
孔子晚年心志蠢測一一並為〈莫春篇〉作一新解
Contemplating the Intentions of the Late' Confucius
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
孔子晚年的心志如何,的確多費猜疑。作者發現其中最主要 的關鍵在於如何對當今留下的史料作恰當的選取與解讀而已。本 文以〈論語〉為基準,通過〈易傳〉與〈春秋〉來了解孔子晚年的思 想。對〈論語〉裡自古以來號稱難解的〈莫春篇〉作出新的了解,顯 給孔子晚年密契天道的意境,指出這正是孔子志存撥亂,推闡易 道,作〈春秋〉運諸三世之苦心。後世實在不宜再忽視或過度懷疑 〈孟子﹒朦文公下〉、〈史記﹒孔子世家〉及新近出土吊書〈易傳﹒要篇〉等史料具有呈顯孔子晚年思想實況的價值性。
It certainly is difficult to grasp the intentions of the late Confucius. Everything hinges on the adequate choice and interpretation of the historical sources that have come down to us. This essay takes the analects as a basis to further explore Confucius' later thought as expressed in the Yizhuan and the Chunqiu. As the author's analysis of the difficult "late spring" passage in the analects shows, Confucius in his later life was primarily concerned about the way of heaven (tiandao). The dao in the Yizhuan and the theory of the three ages in the Chunqiu elaborate on this theme. It is time for us to realize the value of the historical material such as the Teng Wengong chapter in the Mencius, the Kongzi shijia chapter in the Shiji and the recently unearthed Yao chapter of the Yizhuan to get a clearer understanding of the late Confucius.
|
|
|
125.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
關永中
Wing-Chung Kwan
生命的黃昏一一與庫伯羅斯懇談臨終五階段的教育意義
The Evening of Life a Dialogue with Elisabeth Kubler-Ross on the Educational Aspect of the Five Stages of Dying
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
在其代表作〈論死亡與臨終〉一書中,庫伯羅斯提示臨終病者 可經歷五個階段:即否認與孤立、憤怒、議價、抑鬱、接受。從 中我們可意會到臨終可以是一個教育人體會生命意義的機緣,讓 人藉此接受挑戰而獲得生命的轉化、靈性的提昇、與愛的增長。
According to her major research on death and dying, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross proposes that the final phases of a terminally ill patient may undergo such stages as denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. From our dialogue with Dr. Kubler-Ross, we come to realise that each stage IIlay prove to be an occasion for one to learn his lesson concerning the meaning of life. If a person manages to make good use of the opportunity, he may attain such an edifying transfiguration of life that reveals that dying can be a challenge for one to confront one's ultimate concern, a chance for achieving spiritual growth, and a pathway through which one may appropriate for oneself the value of love.
|
|
|
126.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
.陳榮華
Wing-Wah Chan
海德格與高達美論語盲:獨白與對話
On the Concept of Language in Heidegger and Gadamer: Monologue vs Dialogue
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文分三個部份。第一部份指出,在海德格哲學,語盲的本性是 獨白,然後我分析獨白的意義。第二部份指出高達美認為語育的 本性是對話,接著我分析對話的意義O最後,我認為語育的真正 本性是對話,而海德格的主張是難以成立的。
This essay is divided into three sections. In the first section, I point out that in Heidegger the nature of language is monologue, then I analyze the characteristics of it. In the second section, I show that in Gadamer the nature of language is dialogue, and I then analyze the concept of dialogue. In the last section, I argue that the concept of monologue contradicts the nature of language, while a dialogical concept of language is acceptable.
|
|
|
127.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
彭艾林
Wen-Lin Peng
柏拉圖〈克拉梯樓斯篇〉研究
A Study of Plato's Cratylus
view |
rights & permissions
Since the end of 19th century, it's undoubtedly well-known between the so-called "Platonforscher" that a lot of the hermeneutic difficulties exist in various interpretations on Plato's Cratylus, especially in respect of the unsolvable contradiction between the conventionalistic - nominalistic and naturalistic - realistic interpretations. I try to reduce the discussed problems of this dialogue to the following 9:1. For what purpose does Plato write Cratylus?2. Who is Plato's antagonist?3. What does Plato claim on the correctness in name (ὀν ομάτων ὀρθότητα)?4. Is Socrates' etymology strictly meanful?5. In what chronological period does Plato write this dialogue?6. What are Cratylus' and Hermogenes' propositions for the correctness of name?7. What differences between Plato's and Aristotle's assertions about the correctness in name?8. As a younger disciple of Heraclitus, is Cratylus' stand point the same with Aristotle's report in Metaphysics?9. Does Cratylus understand Heraclitus' doctrine correctly?There are various answers to the above-mentioned problerns between the "Plaotnforscher", because they tempt to solute these problems on the basis of analytical method, which inevitably arises hermeneutic difficulties by interpreting CratyIus. By Plato, philosophizing means "dialegesthai" (διαλέ γεοθαι) and dialectic is a method of asking and answering. Platonic dialogues are the results or literal records of the to-and- fro-oration. If one wants to conceive Plato's philosophy, then he must comtemplate argumentative speculation between the partners in dialogue. If one predeterminated his studies with analytic tendence, then he should miss Plato's dialectic activity and its appearantly antinomic consequence.The problems are treated by following theoretical steps: 1. An analysis of the dialectical roles of Socrates, CratyIusand Hermogenes in this dialogue.2. An anlysis of the different assertions of the correctness in name.3. On the basis of these two analyses, I try to answer the above-mentioned problems.
|
|
|
128.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
林從一
Chung-I Lin
詮釋的不確定說和自我知識
The Indeterminacy of Interpretation and Self-Knowledge
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
創因和戴維森的不確定說主張,單一指涉和確定意義不是語 意事實,它們是虛假的概念。這個主張其有普遍性,並且擴及意 向性狀態:單一指涉和確定意義不僅不是他人語盲的語意特徵,它們也不是我們母語或第一人稱語盲的語意特徵;同樣的宣稱, 也適用於任何具有確定內容的意向性狀態O在這個觀點下,既 然,單一指涉、確定意義和確定心靈內容,不是任何語盲和心靈 的特徵'它們就不是任何人,包括行動者本身,的知識對象一一 我們不能知道我們自己的〔確定的〕字詞的指涉、語旬的意義和心靈的內容到底是什麼,因為它們根本不存在O然而,另外一方 面,戴維森也主張,我們通常其有我們自己語育的語意知識O這 兩個主張之間,至少表面上看起來,存在著緊張關係O邁爾巴斯 在其〈達納戴維森和意義之鏡) ( Donald Davidson and the Mirror of Meaning ) 一書中, 曾試圖替戴維森消解這個表面上的緊 張。但是,本文將指出邁爾巴斯為戴維森所作的回應,並沒有忠 於戴維森對自我知識的基本看法O本文將以一種不岡於邁爾巴斯 的角度,呈現出戴維森的不確定說和其對自我知識的看法之間, 不存在真正的不一致。本文認為,對戴維森而育, (我們通常其 有我們自己吉談的內容之知識〕中的「知識」一詞指的是,對如 何正確地使用宇祠的知識,而不是關於仟度是字詞的對象的知 識。知道如何使用字詞,是一種實踐的能力,其有這種能力並不 預設字詞有單一的指涉,亦不預設語句有確定意義。
Quine and Davidson advocate tile thesis that assignment of semantic contents and intentional states is underdetermined by the totality of behavioral evidence. More specifically, given all the empirical data, the decision as to how to attribute semantic and intentional content is arbitrary. Given the indeterminacy thesis and Davidson's contention that semantic and intentional content are, in principle, publicly accessible, it follows that there is no such things as unique reference, determinate meaning and definite mental content. Furthermore, since such things are not factual matters in anyone's language and mind, they are not objects for anyone, including the agent himself, to know of. However, Davidson also endorses the view that even though we sometimes are not certain about what other speakers believe and mean, we are nonethelessusually certain about what we ourselves believe and mean. This view seems to be at a conflict with the thesis of indeterminacy as it applied to the first person case. It has been argued, most pointedly by Malpas, that in Davidson's account there is no incompatibility between the indeterminacy in the first person case and the intuition that we usually have knowledge of our the content of own utterances and intentional states. In this paper, I mainly argue for two points: first, Malpas' reconciliation for Davidson is based on a seriously misunderstanding of some of Davidson's own ideas and is therefore inadequate; second, so long as we distinguish two kinds of knowledge involved in the seemingly conflict propositions, the conflict will be proved to be merely apparent.
|
|
|
129.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2001 >
Issue: 24
竺曉丰
竺曉丰
對黃懿梅教授「女性主義知識論的哲學 反省」 的意見
對黃懿梅教授「女性主義知識論的哲學 反省」 的意見
|
|
|
130.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2002 >
Issue: 25
林火旺
Huo-Wang Lin
宗教少數團體可否拒絕政府的教育?
Can religious minorities reject the state-sponsored education?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
自由主義的政治理想是在承認多元和差異的前提下,如何建 構一個穩定的社會,所以自由社會是一個包容多元的社會,但是 自由主義民主政治所能包容的差異是否有其限度?為了建構一 個穩定包容的自由社會,自由主義政府必須進行公民教育,以培 養自由社會公民其有容忍差異的基本德行,因此適度的公民教育 似乎是維持社會穩定和諧的必要工作。然而由於公民教育的對象 是自由社會所有的成員,這對一些不以“容忍"為主要德行的少 數社群和宗教團體而言,自由主義的公民教育會危及其信仰的存 績和社群的發展,在自由主義容忍原則之下,這些宗教上的少 數,可否拒絕政府的公民教育?本文針對這個問題的各種解答提 出討論和評估,最後引進史賓勒的“部分公民"概念處理這個實 踐上的問題。
The political ideal of liberalism is to construct a stable society on the assumption that there are different and contradicting views about a good life. Presumably a liberal society tolerates and even celebrates differences and diversity. But is there a limit on liberal toleration? It seems obvious that in order to accomplish a stable and tolerating society, liberal state has to ensure all of its members acquire some virtues (especially toleration) necessary for the health and proper operation of the society. Therefore, itseems civic education for all members is inevitable. However, within a liberal society there are illiberal (religious) minorities who neither celebrate toleration, nor do they favor diversity. As a matter of fact, any form of civic education sponsored by the liberal state will undermine their ways of life and threaten their survival. Can they, therefore, refuse the kind of civic education imposed on them by the state? Various answers to this question are examined and evaluated in this article, and Jeff Spinner's idea of “partial citizen" is introduced as an adequate solution to this practical Issue.
|
|
|
131.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2002 >
Issue: 25
蔡信安
Denis Hsin-An Tsai
孟子:德行和原則
On Virtue and Principle in Mencius
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
孟子哲學是以「善」為目的, r 德行」為行為動力來源, r 原 貝」 是行為抉擇時的手上的參考原則, 依效益主義者的思維模式 的哲學o這種哲學是可以應用在人生的各個層面,從政治領袖到 販夫走卒都需要的。他認為最主要的,就是培養「德行」 '就一 切可以促成。最主要的德行是,仁、義、l禮、智。在這四種之中,仁與義 是道德德行,禮與智是輔助性的增強性德行。它們相對應產生的 原則,是行為抉擇時的參考原則,雖然它們其有客觀有效性,但 不是不可被凌駕的。這是一種「道德客觀主義」 '不是「道德絕 對主義」。取捨的原則是依「效益原則J '以「善」為目的去做的。 「善」不是指某一個個物,而是具有「可欲J性」的性質之事 物。孟子用「可欲」來詮釋人類追求的對象之性質,指出它在整 個行為抉擇過程中,德行與原則都是工具,唯有「善」才是目的。這種「善」應該指的是存在於這一個宇宙內,是人人都會了解而 且喜愛的、也跟人息息相關的存在。這是一種實在論的自然主義 的倫理學。
Virtue and principle are two important subjects in Mencius's ethics. This paper deals with them from viewpoint of ethics of virtue and of principle. The author indicates that Mencius' four virtues, i.e. hearts of compassion, of shame, of courtesy and modesty, and of right and wrong are universal human endowments and essential to human life. There are four “principles" derived from them. That is , “jin" , “yi" , li" and “ chu." The first two are essential ethical virtues while the others enabling ones. The author contends that Menciusian ethics is consequentialistic. Mencius believes his principles have universal and objective validity. But they are overridable. Moral agent has to choose a correct principle in the particular moral or political context by the principle of utility. This is a kind of utilitarian moral reasoning that is ignored by most of interpreters.Moreover, Mencius is a naturalistic and realistic moral philosopher. “The good" is defined by “that is desired." But he conceives that good is a kind of property in thing itself being perceived by human being. In fact, what the good is is not an issue in his philosophy. But it is important to moral reasoning since it is dependent up the principle of utility.
|
|
|
132.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2002 >
Issue: 25
孫效智
Hsiao-Chih Sun
猶太基督宗教倫理與動機自律
Judeo-Christian Ethics and the Autonomy of Motivation
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
一般人多半認為,宗教信仰能提升道德動機,強化道德意 識。然而,宗教批判者卻抱持不同的想法。他們認為,宗教徒行 善往往是為了追求功德或進天堂,這不但不是真正的道德動機,還會使得動機慘染了雜質,而不再真有道德的純淨性。宗教信仰 究竟會提昇抑或扭曲道德的動機?這正是本文所欲探討的主題。本文的論述主要是以西方宗教信仰及宗教批判者之間的對 話為場域。實則,類似的對話以不同方式也可見於宋明以來各種 儒釋或儒道的辯論。首先先解釋動機「自律」與「他律」概念,作為進一步討論的基礎。接下來將從宗教批判者的角度以及西方 宗教的義理,來指出猶太基督宗教信仰在某些意義上的「他律」 性。第三部分將探討宗教對動機自律的肯定與強調,儘管宗教倫 理因著利己主義而有他律的色彩。最後一部份是整合性的反省。關鍵的問題是:在宗教倫理中,利己與利他、自律與他律是否能夠統整?
While it is generally reckoned that religious beliefs can reinforce or purify our intentions in moral respect, some religious critics believe the opposite. According to them, religious people do good deeds not just for the sake of the good but also, if not more so, for the reward they may have in the future. Associated with the idea of deserts, religion seems to encourage heteronomous rather than autonomous motivations behind good actions. Whether this criticism is justifiable in the Judeo-Christian context is the main issue of this article. The article is divided into four parts. Firstly, the ideas of autonomy and heteronomy are introduced as a basis for further discussions. Secondly, the opinions and arguments of significant religious critics are presented and examined as we tackle with the question whether or not and to what extent Judeo-Christian religion is heteronomous. In the following part, it is shown that Judeo-Christian religion has a long tradition of respecting motivational autonomy even though it affirms the idea of deserts in the eschatological sense of paradise or hell in afterlife. The last partof the article deals with the possibility of integrating selfand other-regarding interests, or, integrating motivational autonomy and heteronomy, in thedomain of religious ethics.
|
|
|
133.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2002 >
Issue: 25
趙之振
Chi-Chun Chiu
論盲目實在論
On Blind Realism
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
阿梅達( Robert Almeder) 的盲目實在論主要有三點主張:放棄真理符應說,我們仍然可以知道外在世界之存在;我們具有關於世界的正確信念;但我們卻無法指出哪些信念是正確的。本文之目的,便是要檢視阿氏為其盲目實在論所提出的論證。一方面,我們試圖指出:阿的論證。一方面,我們試圖指出:阿證'是基於對裴爾士( Pe i rc e )的誤解;而且論證本身也是站不住腳的。另一方面,阿氏對第二點主張的論證是不足的,而且即使他對它的證明是成立的,也與他的第三點主張不相容o因此,盲目實在論是不成立的。
The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the following main theses of Almeder's blind realism: (TI) Even if we abandon the correspondence theory of truth, we would still know that there is an external world. (T2) At any time, some of our presently completely authorized beliefs about the external world must correctly describe the external world. (T3) We cannot justifiably pick out which of our presently completely authorized beliefs do correctly describe the external world. I try to show that Almeder's argument for T1 is based upon his misunderstanding of Peirce's well-known Harvard experiment and it also fails to support T1. Moreover, T2 is not well elaborated and, even worse, incoherent with T3.
|
|
|
134.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2002 >
Issue: 25
陸敬忠
Jing-Jong Luh
高達美哲學詮釋學之原理一理解之歷史性與詮釋學循環
The Principle of Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics--The Historicality of Understanding and the Hermeneutical Circle
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文主旨在於對高達美哲學詮釋學理論核心部分跟根本原 理、亦即其基本預設或基設一此有理解之歷史性,特別是由其 發展底第一個理論核心要素一「詮釋學循環」一進行文本的 詮釋及系統內在性義理初探。〈真理與方法〉論述底中心部分, 即第二部分後半部〈一種詮釋經驗底理論之諸基本特質) ,為高 達美哲學詮釋學底理論構思核心。高達美首先由海德格式「理解 之循環」發展出其自身的「詮釋學循環」為其哲學詮釋學的首要 理論核心要素及其主導思路。本文對此進行闌釋之結構如下:壹﹒哲學詮釋學底首要基設一理解之歷史性:海德格底「事 實性詮釋學」及高達美之基設性攝納;先綜觀高達美攝納海德格 式此有理解底歷史性為其哲學詮釋學首要基設之義理性脈絡。貳﹒詮釋學循環之為理解前結構:高達美對海德格式理解循 環底哲學詮釋學性轉化;基於海德格所揭示此有理解的歷史性之 為哲學詮釋學首要基設,高達美導入以此為本之詮釋性循環,作 為理解底「前結構J '並對海德格式理解循環作轉化性發展:此 循環不再以此有在其存有中理解自身之存在性深層結構為主,而 是在精神科學層面上平實化為日常生活中及學術性的文典理 解。雖然在高達美之論述中潛藏若干理論性問題,他在文典理解 之具體經驗脈絡下所描述的不斷在理解中發生的詮釋性循環,不但指出由閱讀、理解文典者底「前設想」至對實理性意義之滲入 而導致迴向先設想並修正底類循環過程,更提示出由歷史性出發 之主導思路:先讓人意識到理解者底前結構,以梅被理解者之實 質事理呈顯自身。參幢以詮釋學循環為出發點之哲學詮釋學闡證思路;基此發 展其哲學詮釋學理論基本特徵'亦即描述文本理會經驗之為詮釋 學性基本現象底理論性語言及其闡證思路。
The goal of this essay is to give a textual interpretation and a comprehensive system-inherent analysis of the basic principle of the theoretical core from Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, that is, to explore the historicity of understanding of “Dasein ", especially the first crucial element of this hermeneutical theory, the hermeneutical circle. The central part of Truth and Method, “Rudiments of a Theory of Hermeneutical Experience", is the core of the theoretical exposition of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. He begins this part by transforming his fIrst theoretical element, the “hermeneutical circle", from Heidegger's “circle of understanding", and then develops this to the basic thought pattern of his hermeneutical thinking. This essay examines the following main points from this part of Truth and Method:1. The primary ground-presupposition of the philosophical hermeneutics; that is the historicality of understanding, Heidegger's “hermeneutics of facticity" and Gadamers presuppositional absorption of it. First, this essay looks over the system-inherent context of Gadamer's ontological adoption of Heidegger's historicity of understanding of Dasein as the first presupposition of philosophical hermeneutics.2. The “hermeneutical circle" as the “forest ructure" of understanding, i.e., Gadamer's philosophical-hermeneutical transformation of Heidegger's “circle of understanding". On the basis of Heidegger's historicity of understanding as the primary Presupposition of philosophical hermeneutics, Gadamer introduces the “circle of understanding" from Heidegger's Being and Time, and transforms it to his own theory of a “hermeneutical circle" as the “forestructure" of understanding. This circle concentrates no longer on the existential depth-structure of the Dasein's understanding of itself in its Being, but first picks out the understanding of text in the ordinary “lifeworld" or academic activity on the horizon of human science as a central theme. Although there are some implied theoretical problems in Gadamer's exposition, he describes the ever-present hermeneutical circle in the phenomenon of understanding as the concrete context of experience of “text-reading" . He points out the quasi-circular process that starts from the fore-projection of the text-reader to the penetration into the meaning of matter-of-factness in text, and leads to this new understanding, which finally repulses the fore-projection and corrects it. With this, he discloses the orienting pattern of his philosophical hermeneutics: first the awareness of the forestrucuture of understanding, and then the revelation of the matter-of-factness of the subject of understanding itself.3. The hermeneutical circle as the starting point of the exposition of philosophical hermeneutics. From this Gadamer develops the essential features of his hermeneutical thought, i.e. the description of the experience of “text-understanding" as the theoretical language and approach for the fundamental phenomenon of hermeneutics.
|
|
|
135.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2003 >
Issue: 26
陳榮華
Wing-wah Chan
海德格〈存有與時間〉的Dasein是一個人本主義的概念 (humanistic concept) 嗎?
Is the Concept of Dasein in Heidegger's Being and Time a Humanistic Concept?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文要證明:海德格《存有與時間〉中的 Dasein 不是一個人本 主義的概念。我分三部份進行這個工作。首先,我根據〈柏拉圖的 真理理論〉一文,說明人本主義的意涵,它是指:人在思考時,不 以存有為基礎,而以人自己為基礎。然後,我分析〈存有與時間〉 中的方法論和Dasein的存有,指出當海德格說明 Dasein 時,是以事 實性為Dasein 的基礎,因此,雖然《存有與時間〉一書在分析 Dasein 時,是以 Dasein 為核心的,但並不因此是以 Dasein 為它自己的基礎。 由此可以證實, Dasein 不是一個人本主義的概念。最後我要指出,只有預設Dasein不是人本主義的概念,才能一致說明海德格後期哲 學的發展,由此,我更進一步證成Dasein不是人本主義的概念。
The aim of this essay is to show that Dasein in Heidegger's Being and Time is not a humanistic concept. In doing this I will separate my work into three sections. In the first section I will probe the concept of humanism by an analysis on Heidegger's essay entitled “Plato's Doctrine of Truth." I will conclude that humanism, on Heidegger's view,is the claim that man, in his thinking, has forgotten Being and presupposes himself as the ultimate ground. In the second section I will show, by an analysis on the methodology and the Being of Dasein Heidegger invokes in his Being and Time, that the ground of Dasein is not itself, but facticity-that is, something beyond Dasein. With these conclusions in mind, it will be reasonable to assert that Dasein is not a humanistic concept. In the last section I will indicate that only when we presuppose that Dasein is not a humanistic concept can we coherently explain the development of Heidegger's thought.
|
|
|
136.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2004 >
Issue: 27
何建 興
Ho, Chien-hsing
商羯羅論不可說者的言說
Śaṅkara on Saying the Unsayable
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
對印度教吠檀多不二論的宗師商羯羅(Wavkara)而言,作為萬 有本體以及吾人真性的大梵或真我(梵我,brahman-ātman),不具 有任何屬性,也超越一切思想與言詮,易言之,梵我是非語言思 議所能臻及的“不可說者”。問題是,以語言指涉終極真實一事 似乎無可避免,此外,商氏推崇的《奧義書》等聖典也於梵我多 所言說。如是,對商羯羅而言,我人應如何理解聖典語言的指涉 作用?我人還能否以任何方式言說那不可說者?在簡略介紹商羯羅的不二論哲學之後,本文探討《奧義書》 與商羯羅本人以梵我不可言詮的理由。其次,我們依序論述商氏 所採取,語言之於不可說者的三種表示法,亦即:(1)訴諸否定語的遮撥法。(2)訴諸間接肯定語辭的指示法。(3)訴諸明言的增益及其否定的隨說隨掃法。其後,本文參就「增益及其否定」一概念,討論這三種表示法的 異同關係。我們認為,商羯羅對於「如何言說不可說者」一課題 所提出的語言哲學進路頗具深意,也有極大的參考價值。
For Śaṅkara, the most renowned teacher of the Advaita Vedānta school of Hinduism, Brahman or Ātman as the sole ultimate reality underlying all beings is attribute-less, indivisible, unconceptualizable and unverbalizable. In other words, Brahman-Ātman is for him ineffable, well beyond the reach of human language. Yet, referring to the reality in words seems on many occasions inevitable, and the scriptures of the school do contain positive statements about the reality. How, then, should we understand the referring function of the scriptural language? How can one speak meaningfully of something that is unspeakable? In this paper I propose to expound Śaṅkara’s views on these issues.Śaṅkara, indeed, sets forth three methods by means of which one can make linguistic references to the unsayable: (1) the method of negation (netivāda), (2) the method of indication (lakṣaṇa-vṛtti), and (3) the method of imposition-cum-negation (adhyāropa-apavāda). The three methods will be closely examined in sequence with their mutual relationships exposed thereafter. The author is of the opinion that Śaṅkara’s linguistic approach toward ‘saying’ the unsayable is rather instructive and really worth our attention.
|
|
|
137.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2004 >
Issue: 28
黃懿 梅
Yih-Mei Huang
論富蘭克福特式的例子與其他可能性的原則
On Frankfurt-style Examples and the Principle of Alternative Possibilities
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
在討論自由意志問題中,我們要問:為什麼我們應該關心自己是否有自由意志以及決定論是否是真的?我們之所以關心自己是否有自由意志是因為我們關心道德責任。一個行為者如果沒 有自由意志,那麼就不能要求他負道德責任。這個原則就是其他 選擇可能性原則”(the principle of alternative possibilities 簡稱 PAP)。PAP 是這樣的:一個人為他所做的行為道德責任,那麼他能做其他不同的 事。Harry G. Frankfurt 在“ Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” (Journal of Philosophy 66, 1969, pp.829-39) 一文 中,提出反例,證明PAP 是假的。針對Frankfurt 所提出的反例,有不同的回應。最普遍的反應是:認為在反例中確實有其他選擇 的可能性—微弱的自由(flicker of freedom)。有各種不同理由支持 這個觀點。Fischer 反對這微弱的自由可以做為道德的基礎。另外有的哲學家認為反例中預設因果決定論,行動者不要為他的行為 負道德責任。Van Inwagen 認為PAP 不成立,但他提出另外三個 原則來重新建立做其他不同事的能力與責任之間的關聯。本論文討論Frankfurt 的反例是否反駁了PAP。反例是否是真 正的反例?(1) 反例中是否確實有其他選擇的可能性?(2) 反例 中的行動者是否要負責?(3) Van Inwagen 的三原則是否有效地把 做其他不同事的能力與責任關聯在一起?以釐清能有其他選擇 的可能性與道德責任之間的關聯,以便對自由意志問題的能有比 較有效的探討。
There is a important principle in the problem of free-will. This principle is called “the principle of alternate possibilities” (hereinafter : PAP) which states that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. Harry G. Frankfurt has presented a series of putative counterexamples to PAP. (“Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” Journal of Philosophy 66,1969,pp.829-39)The “Frankfurt-style” examples have evoked considerable discussion. One general form of response to the examples is in the examples there are alternative possibilities. Our aim in this paper is to discuss that whether Frankfurt –style examples undermine PAP? (1) Are there alternative possibilities in Frankfurt–style examples? (2) Is an agent moral responsible for a decision although he could not have avoided making it? Or whether Fischer on alternative possibilities and responsibility is correct? (3) And we also discuss Van Inwagen’s three principles which is established the link between ability to do otherwise and responsibility.
|
|
|
138.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2004 >
Issue: 28
陳榮 華
Wing-Wah Chan
海德格與高達美的時間概念
The Concept of Time in Heidegger and Gadamer
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文是要檢討海德格與高達美的時間概念,說明它與他們哲 學的關係。我要指出,無論海德格前期和後期的時間概念,在理 論上無法讓海德格完成他的哲學工作──存有意義的探索,但高 達美的時間概念,卻可以讓他得以詮釋存有的意義。本文首先分析海德格的前期作品《存有與時間》中的時間概 念,繼而說明他的後期作品(時間與存有)的時間概念。我指出,這兩個概念在理論上無法讓人完成存有意義的詮釋過程。然後,我從三個觀點分析高達美的時間概念, 它們分別是 (Gleichzeitigkeit, contemporaneity),節慶(Fest, festival)中的時間和 充實時間(erfuellte Zeit, fulfilled time)。我認為,高達美的時間概 念可以讓人完成詮釋的過程,因此亦可以理解存有的意義。由 此,高達美的時間概念在理論上是可以證成的。
This essay analyzes the concept of time in the philosophy of Heidegger and Gadamer in order to show its relationship with both philosophers’ discussion on “Being”. I point out that no matter in his early or later writings, Heidegger’s concept of time is in conflict with his concept of understanding. Therefore, Heidegger’s quest for the meaning of Being cannot be accomplished. In contrast the Gadamerian concept of time makes the understanding of the meaning of Being possible.In the first part of this essay Heidegger’s concepts of time are revealed by an analysis on his two major works: Being and Time and On Time and Being. I argue that the concept of time revealed in these two books makes the understanding of Being impossible. In the second part Gadamer’s concept of time is discussed by an investigation on the following terms: contemporaneity, time in festival and fulfilled time. I show that the Gadamerian concept of time is in harmony with the understanding of Being. ThereforeGadamer’s philosophy can accomplish the task of illuminating the meaning of Being. Finally I show that it is justified to accept the Gadamerian concept of time in the interpretation of Being.
|
|
|
139.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2004 >
Issue: 28
蔡耀 明
Yao-Ming Tsai
《佛說不增不減經》「眾生界不增不減」的修學義理:由眾生界、法界、法身到如來藏的理路開展
Buddhist Doctrine of "Neither Increase Nor Decrease in the Realm of Sentient Beings" in the Anūnatvâpūrṇatva-nirdeśa: A Doctrinal Development from the Realm of Sentient Beings, Dharmadhātu, Dharmakāya, to Tathāgatagarbha
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文主要探討《佛說不增不減經(Anunatvqpurnatva-nirdewa)》 「眾生界不增不減」的修學義理;至於落實的辦法,則以眾生界、法界、法身、如來藏等關鍵字詞為環節,闡發眾生界之所以不增 不減在理路的根據與開展。如果僅就粗淺的經驗所及,通常大致傾向於認為,在時間之 流的沖刷下,一定範圍內的眾生數目,要不是增多,就是出現減 少的情形,也就是說,幾乎不可能維持在零增加且零減少的水 平。然而,《不增不減經》不僅拒絕接受表面上看似有增有減之 見解,而且擺明了就在經典的標題,高高掛出眾生界「不增不減」 為其主旨。本文扣緊既是《不增不減經》的主旨也是本文主題所 關注的「眾生界不增不減」,沿著關鍵字詞,逐一打開其間之意 涵、根據、和理路。在論述架構上,總共分成五節。第一節,「緒論」,就論文的構成項目,由研究主題到研究目標,逐一交代全 文的構想與梗概。第二節,切入經典主旨——「眾生界不增不 減」——並且就其義理構成,透過系列的提問,展開深度的解析。第三節,切換到「法界」,論陳此一關鍵字詞如何一方面使經典 主旨得到確證,另一方面又使經典在論述的觸角和理路都獲得重 大的拓展。第四節,進一步切換到「法身」,透過此一關鍵字詞,論陳經典主旨如何漸次延伸且一一貫穿眾生、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、和如來等生命形態和佛法修學專業的身分,不僅出之於一貫的著眼點,統整地述說各式各樣的生命形態和佛法修學專業的身分何 以分別造成,而且面對生命相續形形色色的差異,恰好成全經典 主旨的甚深義。第五節,「結論與展望」,總結全文要點,並且針 對後續相關的研究,預做前瞻。本文採取的研究進路,以佛法的修學為著眼點,爬梳與闡明 經典在修學所展開的理路,由此形成對修學義理的一份理解。至 於預期達成的目標,以如下三點最為首要。第一,對《不增不減 經》,做出相當完整的鑽研。第二,以經典主旨和關鍵字詞打通 《不增不減經》的理路,凸顯整篇經文在義理上的整全性與連貫 性。第三,直接藉由《不增不減經》的鑽研,以接近原汁原味的 內涵,開啟生命哲學的一扇門窗,並且認識法界、法身、如來藏 等概念所可能指向的理趣。
The present study examines Buddhist doctrine of "neither increase nor decrease in the realm of sentient beings" in the Anūnatvâpūrṇatva-nirdeśa in terms of a doctrinal development focusing attention on keywords from the realm of sentient beings (sattva-dhātu), dharma-dhātu, dharma-kāya, to tathā-gatagarbha. The Mahāyāna has sometimes been associated with the doctrine that there is neither increase nor decrease in the realm of sentient beings, a doctrine which is often linked to the Prajñāpāramitā-Sūtras or the Mādhyamika school. In this paper, I look into just such a doctrine, as it is found in a Chinese traslation of the Anūnatvâpūrṇatva-nirdeśa, a Buddhist scripture translated by Bodhiruci in 525. Several passages of this scripture were cited in the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga, a treatise still preserved in Sanskrit, Chineseand Tibetan, and give us textual sources for research into the Chinese translation of this scripture.In the Anūnatvâpūrṇatva-nirdeśa, the very way in which the doctrine of neither increase nor decrease in the realm of sentient beings is defined and verified through the employment of the dharma-dhātu theory, a theory which, in turn, is verified by reference to theories of dharma-kāya and tathā-gatagarbha. So in order to understand this scripture's discursive construction of the doctrine of neither increase nor decrease in the realm of sentient beings, we must explore its conception of such keywords as dharma-dhātu, dharma-kāya, and tathā-gatagarbha.It is my hope that an examination of such a scripture with the focus on the doctrine of neither increase nor decrease in the realm of sentient beings may contribute to the study of the various ways in which the contours of the Mahāyāna have been drawn from a doctrinal perspective.
|
|
|
140.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2004 >
Issue: 28
鄧育 仁
Norman Y. Teng
自由意志與事件起因
Free Will and Event Causation
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
由恰當描述、說明行動與事件起因之間的關係,可消除自由 意志行使的論述困境。本文檢討三項試圖解決此論述困境的途 徑:其一,循事件起因的節制,詮釋自由;其二,由機率起因說 明選擇自由的可能;其三,由當事人起因說明。此三者,皆有令 人難以接受之處。本文追索出此三者共通之假設,由否定該假 設,在基本觀念上,做一關鍵微調,而循生活行動、處境調節的 歷程,重新瞭解行動選擇和事件起因之間的關連。此微調核心在 於:深層來看,事件起因、行動選擇,本是生活行動、處境調節歷程中,同一事理相循相隨的不同面向。本文由交叉質問辯駁,循序闡明此關鍵微調的哲學立論基礎。
The dilemma we are in when we reflect on the free power of choice in our person and our place in the causal world can be dissolved if the relationship between action and event causation is appropriately described and explained. The present study examines three approaches to the dilemma: The first is based on how to interpret freedom given event causation, the second based on having leeway given probabilistic causation, and the third based on a postulation of agent-causation. None of them is found satisfactory.By finding out and negating their common assumption, the present study proposes a way of fine-tuning our conceptualization of what it is to act, and to choose, in a world enmeshed with causality. The core idea of the proposal is that, at bottom, event causation and the ways we act and choose are inseparable from each other in our embodiedinteractions with the environment. The philosophical basis of the proposal is made explicit and defended.
|
|
|