|
1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 52
林宏星
Hong-Xin Lin
Zhuxi on True Knowledge and It’s Motivational Efficacy
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文試圖通過對朱子「真知」概念的內容和結構的分析,說明「真知」概念所包含的動機效力,並藉由T. Nagel 的理論,以回應休謨式問題的詰難。對於「知而不能行」之知,朱子認為這種知只是淺知,而真知則必能行。依朱子,一個人在特定情境下對何為最好的知道得越深,他就越可能依其判斷去行動,當一個人之知達到了最高的程度,他便完全會依知而行。這種知(真知)不僅是對所當然之則之知,也是對所以然之理之知,而這種所以然之理原在自家身心上,經由反省體驗而得,因而具有在道德行動中決定如此而不如彼的動機效力
This paper tries to explain the idea of motivational efficacy included in Zhuxi’s concept of “true knowledge” by analyzing the content and structure of this concept, and to face the challenge of the Humean problem through T. Nagel’s theory. For Zhuxi, the knowledge of “knowing without being able to act” (zhi er bu neng xing) is merely knowledge of a shallow kind as the true knowledge will definitely lead to action. In a given situation, the better a man knows what good is, the more likely he acts according to his judgment. When a man’s knowledge reaches the highest degree, he will completely follow it. This kind of knowledge (“true knowledge”) is not only the one that man acts according to what he knows, but also the one that man should do. The latter originates from one’s own mind, and it can be known only through self-reflection by gaining the motivational efficacy determining why a man does this way rather than the other in moral actions.
|
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 52
陳榮華
Wing-Wah Chan
Rorty’s Recontextualization and Gadamer’s Fusion of Horizons
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文首先指出,無論羅逖(Rorty)的脈絡重整 (recontextualization) 和高達美(Gadamer)的視域融合 (Horizontverschmelzung, fusion of horizons) 都是思考的過程。雖然它們是兩種不同的理論,但都是獲得知識的方式。然後本文要證成,脈絡重整無法得到實有的知識,也無法完成羅逖的啟發哲學 (edifying philosophy) 的理想,這是說,脈絡重整無法突破已有的哲學典範,創立新的哲學典範,以提出創新的哲學知識。但高達美的視域融合卻可以避免脈絡重整的困難,讓人能理解實有,也可突破而得到創新的知識。因此相對而言,高達美的視域融合是較合理的思考理論。
This essay first shows that the concept of recontextualization in Rorty and the fusion of horizons in Gadamer are ways of thinking through which knowledge is obtained. Then, I argue that recontexuationalization, as a way of thinking in Rorty, fails both in the achievement of knowledge about reality and in the establishment of Rorty’s philosophical ideal: edifying philosophy. The argument implies that the concept of recontextualization is not able to create a new paradigm by breaking the imprisonment of our present paradigm. Nevertheless, as Gadamer’s fusion of horizon avoids the theoretical difficulties existing in Rorty’s concept of recontextualization, it leads us to obtain the knowledge about reality by being able to create new knowledge. Therefore, in comparison with Rorty’s recontextualization, Gadamer’s fusion of horizons is a more satisfactory theory of thinking.
|
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 52
林薰香
Shing-Shang Lin
The Eternity of the Augenblick
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
海德格於《尼采》(1961)以存有理解為基礎接續《存有與時間》對存有和時間的追問,論點則由《存有與時間》存有者的存有、向來屬我性(Jemeinigkeit)的個體性轉向存有者整體(das Seiende im Ganzen)、存有本身,因而出現與前期哲學有所延續卻又不同的關係。透過對尼采永恆輪迴學說與強力意志的詮釋,海德格於《尼采》提出「瞬間的永恆(Ewigkeit des Augenblicks)」。如此意義下的永恆與時間及自身性有關,而且和《存有與時間》的瞬間(Augenblick)概念及自主式的自由具有某種相似性,因此本文以《尼采》為主,並藉助《存有與時間》的相關論述,探討海德格有關瞬間和永恆的概念,以及瞬間、永恆與人的可能關係。
In Nietzsche (1961), Heidegger investigates the questions of being and time based on a common base, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit, 1927), referring to the understanding of being. But his theses shifts from the being of beings and the individual of (in each case) mine (Jemeinigkeit) in Being and Time to the beings on the whole and being as such in Nietzsche.In Nietzsche, Heidegger has a new definition of eternity (the “Now” falling back into the Self), and seeks the eternity of the Augenblick (blink) by ways of interpreting Nietzsche’s concepts of Will to Power and Eternal Return. I argue that the new meaning of eternity which relates to time and the self (Selbst, Selbstheit) is similar to the concept of Augenblick (blink) and autonomic freedom (Freiheit der Selbstständigkeit) in Being and Time. So, mainly based on Nietzsche and with the aid of Being and Time, this paper aims to investigate Heidegger’s concepts of Augenblick and eternity as well as their relation with human beings.
|
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 52
魏嘉華
Chia-Hua Wei
Intentionality Analysis of Ethics
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
郎尼根主張倫理意向性分析顯示出倫理行為是動態的。它包括:實在的知識、價值反省、價值判斷、決定與行動。實在的知識是透過認知理論的應用而達成的。再者,人基於對價值的無私渴求,會繼續追問一個更深的問題:「我應該做什麼?」如此人便進入倫理反省的範圍。在倫理反省中,人透過情感而意識到價值。此外,情感對價值的回應發生在情感視野中,情感視野會對價值範圍建構出一個方向,它會特別影響價值詢問、價值反省、深思熟慮、價值判斷、決定與行動。至於價值反省與價值判斷,通常是習慣性的。當人遇到新情境、新的情感和價值判斷的新問題時,人會啟動價值反省和價值判斷的新過程。倫理反省是可以自我修訂。人根據價值判斷,而作出決定與實踐決定。
Lonergan argues that intentionality analysis shows that ethical behavior is dynamic. It includes knowledge of reality, reflection on value, judgment of value, decision and action. Knowledge of reality is achieved through the application of cognitional theory. In addition, based upon the pure desire for value, human beings continue to ask a further question: “What should I do?”. With this question, human beings enter the realm of ethical reflection. In ethical reflection, human beings become conscious of value through feelings. Moreover, feelings in response to value occur in the horizon of feelings. The horizon of feelings constitutes an orientation toward the realm of value. It especially affects inquiry into value, reflection on value, deliberation, judgment of value, decision and action. Reflection on value and judgment of value are usually habitual. When human beings encounter a new situation with new feelings and new questions of judgement of value, human beings start a new process of reflection on value and judgement of value. Ethical reflection can be self-correcting as human beings make decisions and put them into action based upon their judgments of value.
|
|
|
5.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2016 >
Issue: 52
李雨鍾
Yu-Zhong Li
The Confliction between “Emptiness” and “Qi”, along with the Problem of Moral Practice
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
熊十力是現代新儒家中極具影響力,也極富爭議性的人物,本文則嘗試透過圍繞在其身上的爭議性話題,進一步探入其背後所關涉到儒佛之爭及道德實踐問題。本文首先對照分析熊氏《新唯識論》(語體文本)中「心-境」結構和宇宙論架構之間的深層關係,進而揭示出其背後所隱含的「空」與「氣」之爭,前者乃是熊氏有取於大乘佛學(尤其是空宗)之處,後者則是熊氏獨尊的儒家(易學)思想系統所牽動的隱藏性線索;本文試圖表明,熊氏對佛家「空」的觀念的吸納,實際上引發了儒學系統中「氣」之坐標的移動與重置,而「氣」及其背後支撐起的實存性體驗又影響了熊氏思想中「空」的形態。藉由「空」與「氣」之間共生而衝突的張力,我們一方面將得以一窺形塑熊氏思想形態的獨特因素,另一方面則可以進一步追問其背後所反映出的,熊氏在儒家「仁心」與佛家「悲心」之間的倫理抉擇,並重新思考此二家在道德實踐問題上各自的利弊得失,由此我們方能真切體會到熊氏由佛轉儒背後的道德關懷與深刻用心,而其中所呈現出的問題結構至今仍值得深思。
Xiong Shili is one of the most influential and controversial philosophers in the modern neo-Confucianism. The paper, starting from the controversial topics haunted Xiong, tries to explore the practical base of morality behind them. Firstly, we compare the “mind-condition” structure and the cosmological structure and by this comparison a conflict hidden behind them is thus revealed as between “emptiness” and “qi”. The former is what Xiong borrows from Mahayana Buddhism, and the latter is derived from the Confucianism tradition that Xiong especially appreciates. As a matter of fact, Xiong’s absorption of the concept of “emptiness” leads to the resetting of the position of “qi” in Confucianism, and the substantial experience supported by “qi” in turn has influences on the formation of “emptiness” in Xiong’s thought. By holding the tension between “emptiness” and “qi”, we can further reveal Xiong’s ethical choice between the “ren” of Confucianism and the “karunā” of Buddhism, by which we are finally able to make tangible the profound moral concerns behind Xiong’s turning from Buddhism to Confucianism.
|
|
|