NTU Philosophical Review

The dualistic Weltanschauung is the most influential philiosophical theory in the Western World. It was founded by both the greek philosophers and the Hebrew prophets. Christianity in the Middle Ages adopted and devoloped it to a great extent. From Renaissance on the Rationalists, the Empiricists and the Reformers each pushed it further in their own ways. There are however, Western thinkers who found the dualistic perspective inadequate and tried to reach a higher standpoint, from which the two poles of the various forms of dualism can be united and harmonized. This article attempts to explicate and evaluate the above thinking process. It is divided into three parts.In the first part, the historical development of Dualism from the Pre-socratics, through Plato, Aristotle, Christianity and the modern world to the contemporary period will be discussed. In this discussion we can see the origin, the flourishing and the transformation of the dualistic theory.The second part focusses on the essential contents of the dualistic world view ranging from Cosmology to Anthropology. Linking soul to the ideal vvorld, and body to the sensible world both the Greek philosophers and the Roman thinkers tried to reunify the dualistic world through the presence of human being. The Christian theologians went one step further and combined divine nature with human nature in God-man, Jesus Christ. The hellenic anthropocentrism, the hebraic theocentrism and the Christian Christocentrism are exposed and clarified in the discussion.In the third part we turn our attention to the Contemporary Meaning of the dualistic view. It is affirmed that first, the right way of Philosophy is proceed from Cosmology to Anthropology, and not vice versa, secondly, Theocentrism and Anthropocentrism must co-exist and help each other in order to fulfill their final existential purpose; and thirdly, all the theoretical contrasts, oppositions and contradictions should be united and harmonised in a higher principle, as in Cusanus' Motto: Coincidentia Oppositorum.

In this paper we first point out that there are six difficulties facing the 2-valued classical logic, which is exclusively a Western production. The six difficulties are: (1) Aristotelian problem of future contingents, (2) the liar paradox, (3) the controversy between Russell's theory of definite descriptions and Strawson's theory of presupposition, (4) Goodman's problem of indoor ornithology, (5) C. I. Lewis' paradoxes of implication, and (6) the paradoxes of confirmation.Then, we try to solve the paradoxes of confirmation by constructing a 3-valued quantificational logic called "confirmation logic", which is shovvn to be semantically complete. Employing the newly constructed 3-valued confirmation logic we build up a 3-valued confirmation theory which solves the paradoxes of confirmation. Furthermore the confirmation logic turns out to be able to solve the other five difficulties facing the 2-valued classical logic. So, maybe it is time for us to have a change of logic.

This paper attempts to clarify Heidegger's conceptions of metaphysical thinking and originative thinking. It is divided into three sections: (1) A preliminary conception of Being. According to Heidegger, thinking is the thinking of Being, so the author firstly presents a general sketch of the meaning of Being. (2) The characteristics of metaphysical thinking. This section tries to show the characteristics of metaphysical thinking. It also argues that metaphysical thinking is not the primordial mode of thinking. (3) The characteristics of originative thinking. Here, the author provides four characteristics of originative thinking. In the conclusion, a brief analysis on the relationship betweenmetaphysical and originative thinking is given.

Lonergan's method for investigating theology consists mainly in its 8 Functional Specialties (Research, Interpretation, History, Dialectic, Foundations, Doctrines, Systematics, & Communications). They base then1selves upon the Transcendental Method containing 4 Transcendental Precepts (Be Attentive, Be Intelligent, Be Reasonable, Be Responsible). They in turn are founded upon the 4 Transcendental Operations of human cognitional structure (Experience, Understanding, Judgment, & Decision).To clarify the connections among Theological Method, Transcendental Method, and Cognitional Structure as appropriated by Bernard Lonergan, this article is divided into 5 sections:I. A Survey on Lonergan's Theological MethodII. The Cognitional Theory as Implied in Lonergan's Method in TheologyIII. The Transcendental Method as Implied in Lonergan's Cognitional TheoryIV. Transcendental Method as Methodology of PhilosophyV. Questions & AnswersThe first section makes a reflection on each of the 8 Functional Specialties, and attelnpts to show that these Specialties can be placed within 4 cognitional levels in the manner as shown in the following diagram:ORATIONE OBLIQUE4 Dialectic ·········3 History ············2 Interpretation ···1 Research ·········ORATIONE RECTA5 Foundations·········6 Doctrines ············7 Systematics........8 Communications···TRANSCENDENTAL OPERATIONSDecision (4)Judgment (3)Understanding (2)Experience (1)The second section makes an analysis of Lonergan's Cognitional Theory which can be summarized by the following diagram:Cognitional Levels | Empirical Level | Intellectual Level | Rational Level | Responsible LevelFaculties | Sensitivity | Intelligence | Reasonableness | ResponsibilityIntending Process | Experience | Understanding | Judgment | DecisionObjects Intended | the Sensible (the Beautiful) | the Intelligible (the One) | the Real (the True) | the Value (the Good)Consciousness | Empirical Consciousness | Intelligent Conscious | Rational Consciousness | Rational Self-ConsciousnessThe third section emphasizes that human cognitional process itself already contains a method of knowing, named Transcendental Method, which can be applied to any field of knowledge. Transcendental Method may be defined as a method of investigation derived from a conscious positive application of human cognitional operations. Such a method consists of 4 main Transcendental Precepts, namely, Be Attentive, Be Intelligent, Be Reasonable, and Be Responsible, basing themselves upon the 4 main Transcendental Operations of Experience, Understanding. Judgment, and Decision. Various functions of the Transcendental Method is also discussed.The fourth section stresses the fact that Transcendental Method is a methodology of philosophy. First, it is because Transcendental Method is the most fundamental method of all methods, a methodology to be sought by philosophy. Secondly, to talk of Transcendental Method is to be involved with such topics as one‘s cognitional structure, one's subjectivity, and objects to be known. All these topics are basic philosophical themes from epistemology, philosophical psychology and metaphysics. The search for a fundamental methodology cannot be separated from the concrete contents discussed by philosophy.The last section is devoted to a series of questions and ansvvers which can be classified into 3 divisions, namely, problems (i) concerning Lonergan's Cognitional Theory, (ii) concerning Transcendental Method as philosophical methodology, and (iii) concerning Method in Theology.

Any reductive analysis of the mental cannot captural the subjective character of experience. So the qualia is not analyzable in terms of any explantory system of physical states. This paper includes three parts.1. T. Nagel's twhat it is like argument' and F. Jackson's 'knowledge argument' argue that physicalism cannot give any explanation of the subjective qualities of our experiences and any physical informations cannot explain what red looks like.2. An analysis and critique of the defenses of physicalism.3. The argument against physicalism (identity theory) is an invalid argument.

Ramsey's redundancy theory of truth as well as the views of its proponents and opponents have been examined in this paper. In addition, I pointed out that Ramseys theory might be influenced by Wittgenstein's Tractatus and argued, from the point of view of possible world. that the vv'ords His true" and "is false" are not redundant.

This survey aims to show that reason cannot be understood solely in terms of natural science. It must be understood in a much wider context of our lifeworld. In order to prove our thesis, we try first to unmask the dangerous strategy of methodologists who claim the unique role of method based on scientific rationality. The domination of method and hence the self-promotion of methodology to the rang of universal epistemology gives birth to rationalism and methodological determinism. Such a narrow understanding of reason comes from an insufficient or incomplete survey of the genetical process of reason and method. Our survey is conducted from following aspects:1) An analysis of the so-called crisis of methodology and reason, best seen in the works of Husserl (The Crisis of European Science) Feyerabend (Against Method), and Gadamer (Truth and Method).2) A historical survey of the genetical process of reason and method and3) A reflection on the internal relationship of reason and method \vhich was first defended by the late Wittgenstein.

宋明新儒家為對抗佛老思想，維護儒家正統地位p乃同溯論語、孟子、大學、中屑、易傳，配合時代需要，建構新的體系。這種體系志在充分說開人的本質，包括人與天地萬物之關係，人類自找提升之可能與途徑。因此，自然觸及人與超越界之間的分際問題。本文因此入手，分別探討:付超越界對於新儒家學者有何意義?叫超越界或「理J ，與人有何關係?母一個人為何應該，又如何可能成為聖人?在此一探討過程中，可以明白新儒家諸子各自的理論，有何特 色，有何內在困難，又有何終極關懷。

本篇的要旨有四:一、我們的思考至少有三種:論議性的，閻明性的，含蓄性 的。二，我們的思考有兩種作用:以共相認，以故事喻比。三、故事及傳統俱屬過去，對理性思考的操作均有極其重大 的意義。四、思考所需的共相必須隱沒於時性邏輯， ┌ 聽的思考˩ , 以及「玩味徘徊」之中。

本文旨在探討儒家哲學中對道德情感與道德理性之看法。指 出人性有多面的功能，因此道德生活有情感，理智及意志等豐富 的層面?不該將復雜的人生簡化為只足情感的表現或者把道德理 念只化為理性的活動。文中特別檢視道德情感的內涵與功能。儒家重視「不忍人之 心」的道德情懷。而此情懷的存在正提供價值判斷的事實根揍，它正證明人為何要行善，說明為什麼必須修身養性，也提出道德 理念的理由。「事實」與「價值」是圓融相關，儒家的道德心理 學，知識論與形上學是結連不可分。

性惡說乃天台性兵思想推演而出，為天台教理之一大特色。本文分成三部分探討智者大師所主張的如來性惡說。第一部分為性惡說溯源。除了印度佛典經論之外， ┌大乘 觀法門」亦為重要線索。第二部分討論智頡「觀音玄義」中如來性惡說之意義，並論 及其與性具思想之關係。第三部分論及對性惡說之評議。

Gilbert Harman firmly believes that his moral theory, first published in his paper "Moral Relativism Defended" has succeeded in defending moral Relativism which has been previously attacked as being inconsistnet. Harman claims that his version of rnoral relativism is a thesis concerning the logical form of a certain kind of moral judgments, i. e., inner judgments. Although Harman's moral relativism avoids the charge of inconsistency, it is not free from serious defects. In this article, I embark on evaluating sonle crucial points which underlie Harman's theory.