Displaying: 1-10 of 400 documents

0.421 sec

1. Phenomenology 2005: Volume > 1 > Issue: Part 1
Jin Xiping, Had he to understand the meaning the Being, so far as he is a human?: A critical assessment of Heidegger’s Idea on language in 1928
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Heidegger said in 1928: “die Frage nach dem Sein [ist] keine beliebige und [wird] nicht von aussen dem Menschen zugetragen, sondern in ihm mehr oder minder wach ist, sofern er ueberhaupt als Mensch existiert…” The author is very critical of this assertion. If it is really the case, are the people who speak non Indo-European language still human beings or not? Is it possible the non-Indo-European language speaking people could have latent understanding of the meaning of being without the word being at all in their language? If the second one were a reality, could the assertion of Heidegger be correct that Sprache is “das von Sein ereignete aus ihm durchgefuegte Haus des Seins”?
2. Phenomenology 2005: Volume > 5 > Issue: Part 1
Lester Embree, Disciplines beyond Philosophy: Recollecting a Phenomenological Frontier
3. Phenomenology 2010: Volume > 1
Leung Po-Shan, 從物的存在看歷史即現狀: View History as the Existing Situation from the Being of Thing
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
View History as the Existing Situation from the Being of Thing. The question of “What is a thing?” is closely related to that of Being. Heidegger had dealt with the research of thing repeatedly since 1919. The following article will show that, regardless of his inspiring thinking about “ready-to-hand” of thing in Being and Time, his research was more extensively developed in his later years at the end of 1940s. By exploring the possibilities of viewing a thing, Heidegger continuously attempted to reveal the serious limitation of Platonic tradition in the western philosophy. This article will analyze in detail the crucial role of History of Being in Heidegger’s understanding of thing through an example of jug. Heidegger in his piece not only suggests a change of attitude to view a thing, but also “viewing a thing” as not simply a passive activity. It is rather a kind of “step backward” of thinking, which means how to let the representative, analytical and interpretative art of thinking return to its pre-reflective, pre-conceptual and intuitive state of existence.
4. Phenomenology 2010: Volume > 1
Hsieh Sheng-Yu, 歷史處境中的行動主體:馬克思哲學與現象學的交互觀察: The Active Subject in the Hiistorical Situation: An Inter-Observation between the Philosophy of Marx and Phenomenology
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The active subject in the historical situation: An interobservation between the philosophy of Marx and phenomenology. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Phenomenology and Marxism have been two major paradigms in human science based on their contribution to ontology about human being instead of methodology. The phenomenological analysis of the ability of sense-giving of human-being made man as a being-active in the world, while the historical materialism of Marx defined man as a passive-being within the particular historical situation. However, these two discourses may easily open to misconception. Phenomenology was once seen as under the banner of solipsism and the philosophy of Marx as an economical or material determinism. In fact, in Husserl’s Ideas II, Husserl had noticed the role and the function of the body in constitutive act and then the human being had been thought as a passive-being, a corporeal-being-in-the-world, in phenomenology. On the other hand, for Marx, his historical materialism had never negated man as a being-active in the historical process. But both of these two philosophical systems cannot successfully describe human being as being-active meanwhile as being-passive. Therefore, I suggest that it is propitious moment to clarify the unclear dimensions of these two philosophical discourses through the dialogue between them. In addition, I will attempt to propose some new statements on the relationship between the body, will and history.
5. Phenomenology 2010: Volume > 1
Wong Yiu-Hong, 時間性、死亡與歷史:後海德格的反思: Temporality, Death and History: A Reflection after Heidegger
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Temporality, death and history: a reflection after Heidegger. This paper aims to evaluate how Heidegger deals with the problem of time in Being and Time. The fundamental issue in that magnum opus is to explain the question of the meaning of Being under the horizon of time. But what kind of philosophical resource could make Heidegger be capable to resolve the problem in the most effective way? The phenomenological interpretation of time takes the first priority in consideration. Although in Being and Time Heidegger has literally made a very little reference to Husserl, the influence of Husserl is too obvious to be denied. Heidegger, however, finds Husserl’s elucidation of time has ever dissolved the dimension of time into the immanence sphere of subjectivity. By making the position of the subject in an all too mighty status, the phenomenon of time has not been rendered faithfully in a phenomenological sense, the motto “zu die Sache selbst”. And, Heidegger would regard Husserl’s working on time has not fully observed this highest norm. Bearing the problem in mind when starting to compose Being and Time, Heidegger has to find a new way to avoid the same “mistake” as his master, and the overall contribution of his great work could in turn be assessed under the same evaluative principle. Has Heidegger successfully saved up “time” from the over dominance of the subject? Has he re-disclosed time as objectively as time itself (die Sache selbst)? This paper focus especially on how Heidegger’s thinking of the past and the future moments in Being and Time. Then, we can see that, when comparing with two other phenomenologists’ treatments on the same issue, Gadamer and Levinas, Heidegger resolutions on “past” and “future’ obviously show their weakness. And, the promise of removing the dominance of the subject is doomed to failure. Moreover, the underlining structure of organizing Being and Time has not fully escaped the way of metaphysical thinking. In his later period, which is so called the “turning”, Heidegger attempts to break down the metaphysical thinking about “foundationalism”, behind this thinking is the presupposition of dichotomy between founding and founded. Judging from this perspective, Being and Time has found no way out of the labyrinth.
6. Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 34
DongKai Li, 黑格尔认识论和本体论的根本错 误以及我的新的本体论和认识论
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Almost all think Hegel’s Ontology and Cognition is wrong. Yeah, his is wrong. But, what mistake? What mistake is the essential one? How to demonstrate Hegel’s this essential mistake in his great Ontology and Cognition system? This section is Ontology. But, Ontology can not be there without the Cognition. Hegel’s great achievement in philosophy history is his Cognition. While, His main mistake is also in his Cognition, and, his that mistake in Cognition is at the basis of hisOntology, his wrong Ontology. So, before point out Hegel’s mistake in Ontology, we must take out his Cognition, point out his that essential mistake in his Cognition. By law of contradiction, Hegel ever study the Cognition, demonstrated that the Cognition course moves by the force of contradiction from the contrast between the object and knowledge. This was really a great achievement and big progress on the development of Cognition, clear up Kant’s confusion in Kant’sstudy of Cognition. But, now, I ask, is that contradiction from the contrast between the object and knowledge the force to move the Cognition course? Pls be kindly noted, this is the place where Hegel’s essential mistake in Cognition rooted. Pls your attention, how does the contrast between the object and knowledge produce a kind of contradiction force, while the object is external exist, the knowledge is another exist? By law of contradiction, only when a pair of contrast exist in a samebody, that contrast could produce the force. the object and the knowledge, obviously are not in a same being body, so, even though there is the contrast between the object and knowledge, that contrast can not produce the force to more the Cognition. For example, the tree is there as a kind of exist being, the knowledge about the tree is there also as a kind of exist being, or, this knowledge about the tree could be regarded as that in people’s mind, in book. Of course, betweenthe tree and the knowledge about that tree there is the contrast, pls be kindly asked, does this contrast produce the force to move your Cognition about the tree? Can you get? Can you feel that force? of course, the answer is NO. So, the force to move the Cognition course is not from the contrast between the object and knowledge! This is Hegel’s essential mistake in Cognition. So, the force moves the Cognition course must come from one same exist being body, in which a pair of contrast exist. In my this Paper, besides point out above mentioned Hegel’s mistake in Cognition, I already present the pair of contrast, existing in one same exist being body, to produce the force to move the Cognition. The contrast to produce the force is demonstrated out by following steps: Firstly, find out Hegel’s mistake in Ontology, because, his wrong Cognition is on basis of his Ontology. Secondly, demonstrate what is the Ontology. I demonstrated successfully that theuniform contradiction body is just the noumenon, the ONTO, which is the root for everything. Then, people, as a kind of external exist, exist also as per the law of uniform contradiction, is a kind of specific uniform contradiction body, in which, a pair of contrast exist, produce the force to control people’s exist, move. Then, I study this uniform contrast in people’s body, finally, I found out this uniform contrast body within people’s body, it is ego and nonego. Ego, refers to the people’s live body, include the body and the instinct, the desire in mind, etc. Nonego, refers to the Idea in people’s mind, the idea reflects the external exist being. For one person, one live body, the Ego and Nonego is a kind of contrast, producing the force to make this live body move. Cognition is a kind of movement of human, so, Cognition course moves by the force from the contrast between the Ego and Nonego within an exist being live body. Following is the Cognition move course way: “EGO”+“Nonego” →→ Force to move (N times) → → Feeling (N times) → → Idea (N numbers)+ thinking (N times) →→ Knowledge (N numbers) ≈ Object →→=Object
7. Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 36
Yan Yin, 论个体自我认同危机
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Self-identity of Individual-subject is evaluative knowledge and factive confirmation on basic of an evaluative knowledge on “who am I”. Crisis of Self-identity of Individual-subject is a extremely stern reality which Individual-subject is confronted with in modern sociality. The paper researches the essence of self-identity of individual-subject, and analyzes the characteristics and reasons of crisis of self-identity of individual-subject from the point of view of theory of evaluation. The paper hold that crisis of self-identity of individual-subject is a difficult position of self-evaluation of individual-subject in modern sociality, and arrives at conclusion that crisis of self-identity of individual-subject can be overcome and prevented by modeling positive self and building a reasonable mechanism of self-evaluation of individual-subject.
8. Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 36
Ziyi Feng, 全球化条件下的民族文化发展
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In view of previous discussions about national culture were limited in the framework of “traditional-modern”, this essay attempts to re-exam this framework in a wider field of “globalization-nationalization”, and treats the development of national culture under the condition of globalization. Since globalization has become an important background and inner essential factor, no matter maintenance, inheritance, accumulation or development of culture cannot be separated fromglobalization, the new frame of reference. Under the condition of globalization, development of culture has its own new characteristics and inner logic, so development of national culture has to be advanced on basis of following these points and law. If a developing country wants to advance the development of national culture, it has to raise cultural consciousness, adjust cultural mind, strengthen cultural transform, and push cultural conformity and innovation.
9. Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 36
Yan Zhao, On Transformation of Historical Forms of Globalization
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
As an objective tendency in social development, globalization has experienced three different historical forms. They are globalization as communication survival purposes, globalization for capital expansion and globalization in amalgamation of cultures. The thesis point out that globalization does not equally mean capitalization. The capital expansion, however, is only one of the forms of globalization process. In the era of the new globalization, both the developed and the developing countries have to coordinate and make active and positive use of the favorite conditions as well as opportunities for further development. The developed and developing countries must learn to respect each other and open up more channels of communication to understand each other better in an effort to better serve their own interests and create a win-win situation despite of their different cultures and stages of development. This is the only way to bring about harmonious coexistence for peoples of various countries around the world.
10. Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy: Volume > 37
DongKai Li, 根据最新的本体论和认识论, 我们应该有怎样的教育理论
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
As per my new theory in ontology and cognition, the theory of education could be demonstrated. My this paper is to demonstrate the theory of education as per my new ontology and cognition. Following is my new theory in ontology and cognition: New ontology: The Onto is the uniform contradiction being. The essence of people: The uniform contrast body within people’s body, is “ego and nonego. “New Cognition: Cognition course moves by the force from the contrast between the Ego and Nonego within an exist being live body. Following is the Cognition move course way : “EGO” + “Nonego”→→ Force to move (N times)→→ Feeling(N times)→→Idea (N numbers) + thinking (N times)→→Knowledge (N numbers) ≈ Object →→ = Object As per above new ontology and cognition, Theory ofeducation is demonstrated in my this paper.