頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論康德的「合目的性」概念--兼與牟宗三先生商榷=On Kant's Concept of Purposiveness--A Discussion with Mr. Mou Zong-san |
---|---|
作者 | 王建軍; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
卷期 | 29:3=334 2002.03[民91.03] |
頁次 | 頁232-241+294 |
分類號 | 147.45 |
關鍵詞 | 主觀的合目的性; 客觀的合目的性; 內在的合目的性; 外在的合目的性; Subjective purposiveness; Objective purposiveness; Internal purposiveness; External purposiveness; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 合目的性原則是康德《判斷力批判》之主導原則。牟宗三先生認為康德的合目的性概念不足以作為審美判斷力之最高的原則,因為在此原則之下,美的對象「內合地決定於理性,外離地遙依于神智」,而這與美的本性根本相違。如果審美判斷要達成其作為理論理性與實踐理性的橋樑的目標,「美的分析」就當重述。(1)本文通過對康德的「合目的性」概念的幾個層次的剝離,認為牟先生在對康德的合目的性概念的理解上存在著一些混亂,即他將主觀的合目的性(審美)與客觀的合目的性(目的論)混同,將內在的合目的性(道德神學)與外在的合目的性(自然神學)混同。本文認為這種混同是牟先生所得的結論與《判斷力批判》之要義相去甚遠的主要原因。 |
英文摘要 | Purposiveness is the main principle of Kant's The Critique of Judgment. Mr. Mou Zong-san argues that purposiveness should not be regarded as the supreme principle of aesthetical judgment, because, he thinks, under this principle the aesthetic object would be determined by reason in itself and dependent on God out itself, which would conflict with the nature of beauty. So if aesthetic judgment is to achieve its aim, i.e. to be the bridge between theoretical reason and practical reason, the part of "aesthetical analysis" should be re-written. In this paper, the several arrangements of Kant's Purposiveness are analyzed, with which it points out that there are some confusions in Mr. Mou's understanding of Kant's purposiveness: confusing subjective purposiveness with objective purposiveness and internal purposiveness with external purposiveness. These confusions are regarded in this paper as the main reason that Mr. Mou's conclusion deviates from the main points of Kant's The Critique of Judgment. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。