21.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
台灣哲學學會簡介
台灣哲學學會簡介
|
|
|
22.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
中國哲學會簡介
中國哲學會簡介
|
|
|
23.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
第十一屆國際邏輯、方法學與科學哲學會議紀聞
第十一屆國際邏輯、方法學與科學哲學會議紀聞
|
|
|
24.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
「佛學網路資料庫J 的建構過程與內容 簡介
「佛學網路資料庫J 的建構過程與內容 簡介
|
|
|
25.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2000 >
Issue: 23
國科會人文學研究中心簡介
國科會人文學研究中心簡介
|
|
|
26.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
王文 方
Wen-fang Wang
N.J. Smith 之《含混性與真之程度》
Nicholas J. J. Smith, Vagueness and Degrees of Truth
|
|
|
27.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
丁 福寧
Ting, Paschal Fu-Ning
亞理斯多德的靈魂不朽概念
Aristotle on the Immortality of the Soul
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
亞理斯多德的《論靈魂》一書探討所有有機體;植物、動物和人之所以 有生命的事實,以及它們分別可以有的活動。他將靈魂定義為生命的原理,靈魂是潛能中可以有生命的自然身體之所以活著的現實原理。有關靈魂不朽的問題是亞理斯多德思想中最不清楚的問題。唯可以明確 的即靈魂不朽的概念是他早期已遺失的著作中的核心問題。在早期著作中,他基本上受柏拉圖的影響,肯定靈魂不朽。在他的成熟期著作中,亞理斯多 德以物理學中的形質論,類比的用到靈魂與身體之間的是形式與質料之間關 係。人是一完整的人,靈魂不能分開、自立地存在,靈魂當與身體組合成一 完整的人。在形質論的框架下如何解釋在身體死亡後,靈魂仍有繼續存在的 可能,就成為哲學家不斷地探討的問題。在本文的探討中,我們指出亞理斯多德雖從沒有一系列有關靈魂不朽的 論證,但從他肯定理性才是人的靈魂,它是形上的簡單,是非物質的,它的 固有活動是非物質的活動,他肯定靈魂的本性是不朽的。理性非身體的形 式,它是在自身分開的實體,形質論不能用到理性與身體的關係。不同於植 物和動物的靈魂當與身體組合在一起,理性是不同類的靈魂。從理性是分開 的實體,它的活動與身體無關,它是非物質的,它因而是永恆和不朽的。亞 理斯多德的這種有關理性的靈魂的獨特本性和活動的特性有著濃厚的柏拉 圖色彩。本文旨在論證靈魂不朽的概念是亞理斯多德早期思想中的主要概 念,也是他一生所未曾放棄的。
Aristotle’s De anima is the first book which deals with all sorts of organism: the living facts of all the plants, animals and human beings, and their proper activities or functions respectively. Soul is defined as the vital principle which enables the natural bodies from having life in potency to be a living body in act.The problem regarding the immortality of the soul is altogether unclear in Aristotle’s writings. However, what is definite is that the concept of immortality of the soul is one of the central ideas in his early lost writings. At his early age, Aristotle was influenced by Plato and accepted the idea of the immortality of the soul. In his mature writings, Aristotle develops his own philosophy. When he speaks about psychology, he speaks in terms of the hylomorphism in the Physics. According to which, all the material substances are composed of form and matter, so is a man composed of soul and body. For Aristotle, as a man is a whole man, the soul cannot subsist separately in itself. In such a case, the possibility of the survival of the soul, after the death of body, becomes the repeated question on which philosophers have been trying to investigate.Aristotle never makes any demonstration of the immortality of the soul, as Plato does before him. Nevertheless, he affirms that the intellect is the very soul of human beings, being metaphysically simple and immaterial, and its activity is immaterial in nature. Intellect is not the form of body; it is a separable substance in its own right. In fact, hylomorphism cannot be referred to the relationship between intellect and body. Intellect is different from the vegetative and animal souls which are bound to be united with bodily organs, whereas intellect can be a separable substance in its own right. It is a different genos of soul. Since intellect is immaterial, its activities are independent from body. It is therefore eternal and immortal. The Aristotelian idea of the intellect is platonic in essence. Aristotle has never given up his early idea of the immortality of the soul throughout his whole life.
|
|
|
28.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
孫效 智
Johannes Hsiao-chih Sun
論儒家現實擁有判準理論 與等差之愛原則的人類胚胎觀點
Confucian Accounts of Personhood and the Moral Status of Human Embryos
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文旨在探討當代儒家在位格理論上所提出的「儒家現實擁有判準」 理論及「等差之愛」原則,以及它們對於人類胚胎的觀點。「儒家現實擁有 判準」(Confucian actual-possession criteria)是區別位格(person)與非位格 (non-person)的一種理論,該理論及由之衍伸出來的「儒家位格漸進論」 (Confucian gradualism)、「儒家社會性位格論」(Confucian social personhood) 是本文首先要加以探討的幾個儒家位格理論,這些理論對於人該如何看待人 類胚胎乃至如何看待人提出了非常具爭議性而值得探討的看法。其次,本文 進一步要探討訴諸儒家「等差之愛」原則以證立「為了醫學進步及人類福祉 的理由而許可傷害人類胚胎」的主張。本文主張,無論「儒家現實擁有判準」、「儒家位格漸進論」或「儒家 社會性位格論」等概念,都無法從儒家思想中推導出來,而且也與儒家思 想互不相容。至於以儒家「等差之愛」原則來證立犧牲胚胎的作法,不僅 證據薄弱,從「不傷害」(first, do no harm)原則的角度來看,更是站不住 腳的。
The aim of this article is to critically explore both the theories of “Confucian actual-possession criteria” and “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” and their views on the moral status of human embryos. “Confucian actual-possession criteria”, as accounts proposed for distinguishing person from non-person, and related ideas of Confucian gradualism and Confucian social personhood are discussed first. Their views on the moral status of human embryos are significant, though controversial, and therefore worthy of in-depth analysis. The article discusses then the claim appealing to “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” to justify the destructive use of human embryos for the sake of the welfare of humankind.I argue in this paper that none of the aforementioned Confucian theories of personhood is derivable from nor compatible with Confucianism. Moreover, the justification of sacrificing embryos based on “the Confucian principle of love of gradation” is not only ungrounded but also untenable from the viewpoint of the basic principle of non-maleficence.
|
|
|
29.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
徐 學庸
Hsu, Hsei-Yung
四個角色的理論 ─西塞羅《論義務》I, 105-125
The Theory of Four Personae -Cicero’s De Officiis I, 105-125
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
根據羅馬哲學家西塞羅《論義務》(De Officiis)的記載,西元前二世紀 的斯多葛學派的哲學家帕奈提烏斯(Panaetius),在論述合宜行為時提出四 個角色(personae)的理論(I, 105-125)。合宜行為的判定,根據帕奈提烏 斯的思想,必須依據一個人是否將其具有的四個角色扮演好,即理性,個人 特質,環境與運氣及選擇。這篇文章的論述主要有兩個目的:首先試探究帕 奈提烏斯的四個角色理論的內涵;其次是藉此理論的討論為當代一空洞的口 號「做自己」,提供一可能的內容充實。本文主要由三部分組成:第一部分 針對四個角色分別進行討論,並論及帕奈提烏斯的思想是受哪些哲學家或學 派的影響;第二部分主要處理的問題是:這四個角色如何能和諧運作?最後,能使四個角色和諧運作者會有什麼樣的生活,會是第三部分關注的焦點。
According to Cicero’s De Officiis, the Stoic philosopher Panaetius discusses the notion of proper conduct in terms of the theory of four personae, i.e. rationality,personal characteristics, circumstance and chance, and choice. The purpose of this paper is twofold: firstly, the content and connotation of the theory will beexplored; secondly, by virtue of the discussion of the theory, the contemporary content-free slogan ‘Be Yourself’ could hopefully be provided with substance.This paper therefore consists mainly of three parts: The first part of this paper explores the four personae respectively, and discusses the problem: WhetherPanaetius’s theory is his own creation or influenced by some other philosophers? The second part deals with the issue: How can the four personae harmoniouslywork together? The third part focuses on the problem: What kind of life will one have, when he can make his four personae harmoniously work together?
|
|
|
30.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 42
陳瑞 麟
Ruey-Lin Chen
牟宗三「科學開出論」的形上學困難 ─以儒家思想為本的中國文化 可以開出現代科學嗎?
Metaphysical Predicaments in Mao Zhongsan’s “Science Kei-Chu-Lun”: Could Modern Science Be Developed Out of Chinese Culture Based on Confucianism?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
「以儒家思想為本的中國文化可以接受西方現代科學嗎?」是二十世紀 新儒家企圖解決的一個核心問題。他們的解決方案是牟宗三著名的「科學開 出論」,亦即主張科學必須從中國文化內部、即儒家思想本身發展出來(開 出)。這套科學開出論預設了一個道德形上學的學說,包含一個「先驗道德 界」與「經驗現象界」的二分架構。本文爭論這套形上學不相容於現代科學 發展的形上學條件,因此無法支持科學開出論,進而我們可由此申論儒學與 中國傳統文化無能力發展出現代科學,雖然它已經產生中國傳統科學。最後 本文想指出,當代台灣哲學家要面對的問題不再是「中國文化與科學的關 係」,而是「在現代科技的衝擊下,什麼是中國文化」的新問題。
The key question which new Confucians in the twentieth century attempted to solve is “Can Confucianism-based Chinese culture adopt Western modernscience?” Their program is Mou Zhongsan’s distinguished “Kei-Chu-Lun,” which claims that modern science must be dialectically developed out of, but not be transplanted to, Confucianism-based Chinese culture. The theory presupposes a doctrine of moral metaphysics, which implies a dichotomy between “the kingdom of a priori morality” and “the kingdom of a posteriori phenomena”. In this paper, I argue that the metaphysical doctrine is incompatible to ontologicalconditions by which modern science could be produced. Therefore, it fails in supporting “Kei-Chu-Lun.” I also argue that Confucianism-based Chinese culturehas no capability to develop Western modern science, although it has produced Chinese traditional science. Finally, I want to point out that the key problemwith which contemporary philosophers in Taiwan should deal is rather “what is Chinese culture when it has been transformed by modern science and technology” than “what is the relationship between modern science and Chinese culture.”
|
|
|
31.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
黃文 宏
Wen-Hong Huang
論早期西田哲學中「自覺」的基本構造 ─以〈邏輯的理解與數理的理解〉 為線索
On The Basic Structure of Self-awareness in Early Nishida -In View of His Discussion of "Logical Understanding and Mathematical Understanding"
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
「自覺」是西田對「純粹經驗」的發展的一個邏輯性說明。本論文的 目的在依據西田〈邏輯的理解與數理的理解〉(1912)來思考西田早期的 「自覺」構造。在這裏有著西田對齊格瓦特與李克特的邏輯思想以及對羅 伊斯與戴德金的無限觀念的改造,我們將重點置於李克特的部分,看看西 田如何從自身的立場轉化了李克特對邏輯與數理的想法,將「邏輯」與「數 理」視為連續性的關係,乃至有所謂「由邏輯往數理」的說法,這形成了 後來西田《自覺中的直觀與反省》中自覺的第一個階段。筆者的論點在於,自覺的體系除了無限自我表象的系統之外,還必須包含著一個對「有+非 有」的全體的直覺,這個全體的直覺或體驗才是自覺體系的中心。在行文 上,我們先沿著〈邏輯的理解與數理的理解〉的思路,重構西田對「邏輯 的理解」(第二節)與「數理的理解」(第三節)的思考,在最後一節(第 四節),筆者試著透過《自覺中的直觀與反省》西田對「絕對自由意志」 的討論來補充之。在這裏,筆者將西田這種「全體的直覺」連結到海德格 對康德的「先驗想像力」的闡釋,西田與海德格都將重點置於經驗中的「無 而生有」的領域。西田所謂的「理解之前的理解」或「純粹經驗」指的就 是這種全體直覺。筆者個人的觀點也表達在這裏。
In this article, I attempt to throw some light on the basic structure of self-awareness (jikaku), which is one of the central concepts in the philosophy of Nishida, according to his early essay "Logical Understanding and Mathematical Understanding" published in 1912. Nishida puts forward a theory of logical development of experience which can be considered as the prototype of self-awareness. Here we can see Nishida's incorporation of ideas drawn from Rickert's and Sigwart’s logical thinking, Royce's self-representative system and Dedekind's definition of infinity into his own system of self-awareness. We focus on Nishida’s Rickert-interpretation. It is my view that only an infinite self-representative or a self-mirroring system cannot explain all of the aspects of Nishida's self-awareness for missing the intuition into the whole that inherent in this system. This ultimate whole which absolute free will intuits is the totality of being (on) and non-being (me on). I try to clarify its meaning according to Heidegger's interpretation of Kant’s productive imagination (produktive Einbildungskraft). The article is divided into four sections. After a brief introduction of the theme and method of the article (section one), I try to reconstruct Nishida's argumentations in logical understanding (section two) and mathematical understanding (section three). Finally in the last section (section four), I discuss some insights of Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant's productive imagination, and attempt to expound possible horizons opened by Nishida in his discussion of the "Absolute Free Will".
|
|
|
32.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
洪巳 軒
Szu-Hsuan Hung
論《管子》政治權威之形式與基礎 ─以〈權修〉為核心之探討
On The Forms and Bases of Political Authority in Guanzi ─A Research on “Quanxiu”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文將政治權威視為一種「命令─服從」的權力關係,並以呈現此種 關係之不同的性質為其「形式」,又以支撐起各種形式之原因為其「基礎」, 進而以此種角度探究《管子•權修》對於政治權威相關主張。結果本文發現, 〈權修〉篇中已然將道德與法律視為政治權威的形式,而且在法律形式中又 可以進一步區分出合法性、引誘性以及強制性等三種權威形式。再者,道德 形式的政治權威其基礎則是心理的,法律形式的政治權威則是以經濟與武力 為其基礎。
The present study treats political authority as a “command-obedience” relationship. This relationship appears in different “forms,” and each respective form is underpinned by a certain “base.” The author targets the forms and bases of political authority exposed in the chapter “Quanxiu” of Guanzi and finds that morality and law are typical forms of authority. From a more detailed analysis, the legal form is presented in the three distinctive dimensions: legitimate authority, induced authority, and coercive authority. The author further argues that the moral form has a mental base, whereas legal form is based on economy and force.
|
|
|
33.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
陳 平坤
Chen Ping-Kun
幻有假名觀下的「物不遷」論辯
Dialectic of “Things Do Not Shift” under the View of “Naming of Illusory Existence”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
本文旨在論究僧肇依據幻有假名的佛教觀點,如何洞徹一切諸法的存 在底蘊,去開顯其中稱得上是究竟真實的內涵,以簡別於非真實的存在體 和認識構作物,從而為世人打通一條得以趣入「諸法實相」或「物性」的 思維道路。本文論述的主要典據是〈物不遷論〉和《注維摩詰經》的僧肇注解;而 所採取的進路,則為重視反省思維和闡釋義理的哲學研究進路。本文研究成果的主要重點如下:(1)涉及「物性」課題的「物不遷」論點只是一種假名言說。(2)「不遷」假說建立在取相分別之認知活動架構上。(3)「物不遷」雖不意謂就是諸法實相,但可當作趣入實相的一道 法門。(4)有關「物不遷」論據的探討,必須清楚辨明認識論問題思維脈絡 中的「[事]物」與存有論問題思維脈絡中的「[事]物」二者間的不同意 義分界,如此才能不管反對僧肇、還是贊同僧肇,在論據上都有比較圓滿的 說服力。
This paper aims to discuss how Sengzhao, basing on the Buddhist view of “naming of illusory existence”, acquires the insight into the existence of all dharmas and reveals the connotation of ultimate reality. Through this insight, he distinguishes true existence from insubstantial and epistemological existence and opens a thinking path to the “ultimate truth” or “nature of things”. The discussion is based mainly on Sengzhao's works: Treatise of Things Do Not Shift and Commentary to the Vimalakirti Nirdesa-Sutra. The approach focuses on self-reflection and the interpretation of his philosophy. The main conclusions drawn from this research include:(1) The viewpoint taken in Treatise of Things Do Not Shift involving “the nature of things” is a theory which establishes the concept of naming for the insubstantial existence.(2) The theory of “Not Shift” is established on the cognitive framework through which things are distinguished from the phenomena.(3) Although the concept, “Things Do Not Shift” does not imply that it is the ultimate truth, it can be seen as a path of exploring truth.(4) Regardless pro or con towards the views of Sengzhao, one must clearly distinguish the differences between the epistemological and ontological definitions of “Things” in order to discuss the divergent views of “Things Do Not Shift” and to be more convincing.
|
|
|
34.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2012 >
Issue: 43
黃麗 綺
Li-Chi Huang
從「虛無」到「笑」 ─論尼采「永恆回歸」之概念
From “Nihilism” to “Laughing” -on Nietzsche’s doctrine of Eternal Recurrence
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
在尼采「上帝已死」的思想中,人失去其價值根源的有效性,在強力意 志所建構的生成世界中,人不再具有不變與永恆的意義與真理,而是由其 相對、暫時的效用與價值來理解存有的意義。本文即嘗試研究在尼采永恆回 歸學說中,是否提供了一種在「上帝已死」、傳統形上學之外對生命的理解 與評價的可能,並且由這個新的理解方式創造出在生成世界之內的新價值。 對此,本文所提出的假說為:永恆回歸的學說是人自我評價的方式,它的特 殊性在於透過此評價方式,一方面保住了生成世界的意義,另一方面在虛無 與生成中創造了存在的價值;而此方式在尼采哲學中呈顯為由從「虛無」到 「笑」的動態發展;在一切言說與理性之外,「笑」創造了一個由身體出發的新視角,它是人作為超人的意義。
In Nietzsche’s idea of “God is dead”, man has lost his validity in the origin of value, no longer holds the meaning and truth of constancy and eternity in the world of becoming built on “will to power”, but comprehends the meaning of existence through their relative and temporary validity and value. The present work attempts to seek in Nietzsche’s doctrine of eternal recurrence a possible comprehension and evaluation toward life other than “God is dead” or traditionalmetaphysics, and to create new values from the new way of understanding in the world of becoming. For this, the hypothesis addressed in the present workis: The doctrine of eternal recurrence is the manner of man’s self-evaluation. Its particularity lies in that, through this manner of evaluation, the meaning ofthe world of becoming is reserved on one hand, and the value of existence is created within nihilism and becoming on the other. This manner is presented inNietzsche’s philosophy as a dynamic development from “nihilism” to “laughing”. Beyond all language and rationality, “laughing” has created a new point ofview setting out from the body, and is the meaning of human as super-human.
|
|
|
35.
|
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
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。
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 concentratedthe 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 this view that this paper argues that the difference between Wang and Chu can be resolved by elaborating their differing problematics.
|
|
|
36.
|
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
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。
The remarkable philosophical innovations revealed in the interpretations of the classics, which has on the one hand contributed to the Sinicization of Buddhism and to the development of Neo-Confucianism, and has provided valuable intellectual sources and theoretical models on the other, are probably the reason why metaphysics in Wei and Jin Dynasties played an important role in Chinese philosophy. The essence of Wang Pi’s philosophy consists in three pairs of concepts, being and non-being, root and branch, and substance and function, by which his philosophical innovation can be illustrated. I try to show Wang Pi’s philosophical innovation in three ways: i. from the concept of Being and Non-Being, a new connotation or logic can be found in the ancient concepts. ii, from the concept of root and branch, the logical sequence of the text can be clarified. iii, from the concept of substance and function, the process of rendering brand-new meaning by employing new conceptual categories as framework (or logic) is demonstrated. This essay attempts to show the philosophical innovation in Wang Pi’s philosophy through these three pairs of concepts.
|
|
|
37.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
1971 >
Issue: 1
都昆如
先蘇格拉底期的「太初」問題探討
|
|
|
38.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
1971 >
Issue: 1
劉福增
論證與推演
|
|
|
39.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
1971 >
Issue: 1
林正弘
R. M. Martin 著Truth and Denotation 商榷
|
|
|
40.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
1971 >
Issue: 1
本期作者簡介
|
|
|