查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 「存有的前提」與「認識的前提」論三種邏輯上可能的關係--以哲學史上實際出現過的三種主張為例的探討=Ontological and Epistemological conditio sine qua non: Three Logically Possible and Historically Actual Positions |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 孫善豪; | 書刊名 | 國立政治大學哲學學報 |
| 卷 期 | 7 2001.06[民90.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁181-200 |
| 分類號 | 143.46 |
| 關鍵詞 | 康德; 黑格爾; 馬克思; 盧卡奇; 存有的前提; 認識的前提; Kant; Hegel; Marx; Lukacs; Ontological conditio sine qua non; Epistemological conditio sine qua non; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 如果「存有的前提」與「認識的前提」之區別是合理而根本的,則必須進一步追問二者間的關係。就邏輯而言,兩者間之關係只能有三:1)兩者不可化約,2)可以「存有的前提」取代「認識的前提」,3)可以「認識的前提」的取代「存有的前提」。此三者在哲學史上各有康德與馬克思、黑格耳語盧卡奇可為其代表。對三者的詮釋,最後導引出一更為基本的問題:是否有「現象」與「本質」之差別? |
| 英文摘要 | If a distiction between ontological and epistemological conditio sine qua non is resasonable and essential, it is than to ask the relationship between them. From logical point of view on the one hand there is only three positions possible: 1)these two kind of condition are irreducible, 2)the ontological one can be reduced to the epistemological one, and 3)vice versa. From historical point of view on the other hand, Kant and Marx, Hegel and Lukacs could be taken respectively as exponents of these three positions. An interpretation of their positions leads to a question which stands behind: whether the distinction between "phenomena" and "essence" is acceptable? |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。