Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-5 of 5 documents

Show/Hide alternate language

論 著 / articles
1. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2012 > Issue: 44
Eric M. Peng 彭孟 堯
Why Resemblance is Not a Relation? -Trope Ontology in a Conceptualist Guise
為什麼相似性不是一個關係 ─從概念論看殊性存有論

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
It is argued that Trope Particularism need not take trope-level resemblance to be an ontological primitive. The main idea is the appeal to the Arity Principle suggested by Butchvarov. But, this does not mean that “resemblance” is unintelligible. I propose that “resemblance” can be metaphysically reduced to a second order internal relation over two first order internal relations such as “greater than” and “heavier than,” and that the phenomena of similarity should call solely for an epistemological or psychological explanation.
2. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2012 > Issue: 44
杜保 瑞 Bau-Ruei Duh
對王陽明批評朱熹的理論反省
Reflections on Wang, Yang-Ming’s Criticism of Chu, Xi

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper, taking ideas from history of philosophy, reflects on Wang, Yang-Ming’s criticisms of Chu, Xi. The reflection indicates that these critical ideas are all derived directly from Wang’s interpretation of Dah Xue (The Great Learning). Taking the perspective that nearly all Wang’s works are based on criticizing Chu’s theory, we can say however that Wang is deeply influenced by Chu. Actually, their difference is not that explicit as seen from the generally held distinction in history of philosophy between Cheng and Chu about Li (principle) school on the one hand and Lu and Wang about Xing (principle) school on the other. In fact, according to Wang’s criticisms which concentrated the limits of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu, we see clearly that the problem originated from Wang’s confusion of Chu’s theory of Kung Fu with Chu’s personal ability of Kung Fu. Moreover, on the Kung Fu theoretical level, Wang’s criticisms confused Chu’s theory of Kung Fu procedure and ontology with pure Kung Fu theory. Consequently this confusion caused the lost of accuracy. Besides, there were other problems relating to criticism based on different interpretations of Pre-Qing Dynasty texts and various views on deviating editions of Dah Xue. This paper however holds the view that these differences caused by referring to ancient texts can be attributed to their differences concerning their attitudes towards the fundamental philosophical problems. It is on thisview that this paper argues that the difference between Wang and Chu can be resolved by elaborating their differing problematics.本文針對哲學史上王陽明對朱熹批評的意見做反思,指出這些批評意 見,從直接的材料上講,主要都是依據《大學》文本詮釋而來的,從陽明的 哲學創作來講,又多是針對朱熹理論做反對而來,就此而言,王陽明實在是 受到朱熹影響很深,兩人真正的差距,不像是哲學史上將程朱、陸王分為理 學、心學兩派之差異那麼樣的極端。又從實際上王陽明所爭辯的問題來看,則多為朱熹工夫不得力的批評,這就又有屬於朱熹談工夫理論還是朱熹自己 的工夫修養程度兩種問題,陽明亦是混淆此兩者。又從工夫理論的批評來 講,陽明又有哲學基本問題的錯置,將朱熹談於工夫次第及形上學存有論問 題的發言都從本體工夫的形式去批評,以致失去其批評的準確度。此外,還有從不同的先秦典籍之義理依據而做的文本詮釋之批評,以及對《大學》版 本本身的意見不同之批評,但上述批評,還是可以化約到哲學基本問題的不 同所致之批評。本文即以此為進路,說明陽明批評朱熹的意見是有可以被解 消之處,關鍵即在問題意識不同。
3. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2012 > Issue: 44
Jih-Ching Ho 何志 青
The Motivational Structure in Practical Reason
實踐理由之動機結構

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
A central issue in the contemporary philosophy of action focuses on the relation between reason and motivation: Internalism holds, while Externalism denies, that there is a necessary connection between reasons for action and motivational states. In 1980, Bernard Williams launched a powerful argument against Externalism in his article, “Internal and External Reasons,” which triggered influential debates in ethics, action theory, and theory of reason. Twenty years later Williams published “Some Further Notes on Internal and External Reasons” (2001), in which he refined his Humean theory so as to accommodate the many criticisms he had so far received. More importantly, he classified his major critics, in the past two decades, mainly into two groups, “the Kantian” and “the Aristotelian,” and raised objections to both. This paper explores the later development of the Kantian and the Aristotelian approaches, primarily in terms of the recent works of Christine Korsgaard and John McDowell, and argues to the effect that Williams’ objections are insufficient to refute the two approaches.
4. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2012 > Issue: 44
林志 欽 Chih-Chin Lin
天台宗圓教法門形成之依據及其類別
The Reasoning and the Classification of Ways of Practice in Perfect-teaching in T’ien-t’ai Buddhism

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
本文是筆者有關天台宗圓教法門的系列論文之一。圓教是天台宗最高超 玄妙的法門,在實踐上是否適合於一般人之修行,學界有不同看法之爭論。此外,筆者研究發現,圓教法門有許多種,而各種的圓教法門其實並非同具 相同的特質,而有不同的定位、適合的根機與可達致的成就。要真正解決天台宗圓教法門的相關論題,就必須先完整地了解天台宗 所有的圓教法門究竟有哪些?其是否有不同的類別?各類法門所以成為 圓教法門的依據又為何?而此等議題學界仍未有相關著作成果。本文研究 之目的即在廣納所有的圓教法門,分析其所以成為圓教法門的理由,進而 加以分類,最終歸納出天台宗成立圓教法門之各種依據。透過此了解,將 有助於對圓教法門之全盤與正確地掌握,並開啟圓教法門爭論問題的解決 之端。經本文之研究所得,從智者大師著作釐析出之30 種圓教法門,其所以 成為圓教法門之根據有七類1.因持誦或由於是《法華經》所說而成為圓教 法門。2.以該法屬最高佛位故為圓教法門。3.與圓教之理相應故成為圓教法 門。4.以圓教之理論述之而使之成為圓教法門。5.本身為圓教法門之獨特代 表行法。6.作為圓教一心三觀之前行方便法門。7.作為圓教一心三觀之輔助 行法。
5. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2012 > Issue: 44
胡 勇 Yong Hu
有無、本末與體用:王弼經典詮釋中的哲學創造
Being and Non-Being, Root and Branch, Substance and Function: The Philosophical Innovation in Wang Pi’s Interpretation of the Classics

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
魏晉玄學在中國哲學發展史上的重要性,很大程度上要歸功於其在大量 的經典詮釋活動中所展現出來的強大的哲學創造性,正是這種創造性為後來 印度佛教中國化以及宋明理學的產生提供了十分重要的思想資源和理論範 型。有無、本末和體用是王弼在經典詮釋中最重要的三組概念,也正是這三 個範疇充分體現了王弼哲學詮釋的創造性。這種創造性主要表現為三種形 式:一種為保持原概念的語言形式,卻改變其概念的內在涵義或邏輯,「有 無」是其代表;一種為原概念的形式和內涵保持不變,獲得改變的是其在文 本脈絡或意義結構中的地位,例如從邊緣到中心、從平等到支配,「本末」 是其代表;一種為創造或採用新的概念範疇作為理解框架或詮釋邏輯,從而獲得和先前完全不同的文本意義,甚至創造出新的文本結構,「體用」是最 好的說明。筆者本文擬從有無、本末和體用及其相互關係等四個方面來呈現 王弼哲學中的創造性所在。