NTU Philosophical Review

In order to understand the content and significance of Zhan Zai’ thought, commentarial works on the Zhengmeng during the Ming and Qing period areindispensable because these works present detailed explications on every conceptual terms. Compared to those commentarial works on the Zhang Zai’s thought by Gao Panlong and Wang Fuzhi who have been regarded as rather creative thinkers, other commentarial works during the Qing period have not drawn sufficient scholarly attention. Bearing this in mind, this article aims to explore the two topics: Firstly, it analyzes Li Guangdi’s interpretation on Zhang Zai’s idea of “deification” through Li’s Commentary of the Zhengmeng. And secondly, it also traces Wang Zhi’s elucidation of the concept of “Ultimate Voidness” (Taixu) in his commentarial work, the Basic Meanings of the Zhengmeng, as well as Wang’s correction of initial mistakes in aforementioned Li Guangdi’s commentary.The discussion of this article consists of the following four sub-topics: (1) Wang Zhi’s exposition of three aspects in the concept of “Ultimate Voidness”; (2) Li Guangdi’s interpretation of the term “Ultimate Voidness” and Wang Zhi’s repudiation against it; (3) Li’s argument that the ontological significance of the concept of “Ulitmate Voidness” should be dissolved, and that Zhang Zai’s idea of deification of continuity between vital breath and voidness should be understood by the dualistic framework between principle and vital breath; and (4) Highlighting of Wang’s insight and Li’s limitation of his conception of deification by means of our analysis of the three aspects in the concept of “Ultimate Voidness.”

人是如何獲得「理解」？德性知識論的代表人物Linda Zagzebski 長久 來宣稱「理解的獲得來自於對技藝的掌握」。在本文中，作者闡釋Zagzebski 的宣稱，並指出這宣稱的問題。透過對Zagzebski 之宣稱的批判性檢視，作 者在文後提供另一修改自Zagzebski 的理解獲得觀點。

This paper aims to dissolve Rott’s counterexamples in terms of default logic proposed by Reiter in 1980. In his counterexample, Rott pointed out that some fundamental principles in AGM theory which meet the property of monotonicity are implausible because it seems unable to handle the processes of nonmonotonic reasoning which are common in our ordinary reasoning. In contrast to classical logic, AGM theory indeed developed a prominent way to deal with belief change, whereas many philosophers still casted doubts on the fundamental principles in AGM theory. For example, there might be some sentences in one’s belief set which are of the same form but different in information value and AGM theory does not commit it. Nevertheless, Rott failed to suggest a plausible way to fix the defect of AGM theory, so I aim to propose a suitable way to dissolve the problem of the processes of nonmontonic reasoning in virtue of the association of AGM theory with default logic.

本文從跨領域的角度探討視覺的根本性質，並以Tyler Burge 的「知覺 的反個體主義」（perceptual anti-individualism）為研究對象。根據這一理論，知覺狀態的本質乃是由知覺者與外在環境的互動關係而定。Burge 提出論證 主張：視覺科學（vision science）預設了這個理論。本文反對這個觀點，並 企圖從三方面來論證：「知覺的反個體主義」不是我們理解視覺的唯一理論 選項。首先，我討論「體內恆定」（homeostasis）的概念，並指出這概念會 使我們對Burge 理論中的「知覺規範」（perceptual norms）產生質疑。第二，我以論證指出：許多視覺科學所研究的現象，可以不必預設Burge 理論中的 「正確性」（veridicality）和「單一表徵」（singular representation）也能得到解釋。第三，我討論一些有關視覺的科學理論並論證：許多視覺科學領域中 的看法其實不支持Burge 的理論。本文的結論是：「知覺的反個體主義」並 不是瞭解視覺本質唯一可選的理論架構。