查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 王弼的「名」、「稱」之辨=Wang Bi's Distinction between "Ming" and "Cheng" |
---|---|
作 者 | 黃文儀; | 書刊名 | 輔大中研所學刊 |
卷 期 | 13 2003.09[民92.09] |
頁 次 | 頁33-42 |
分類號 | 123.1 |
關鍵詞 | 王弼; 老子; 老子指略; 道; Wang Bi; Lao zi; Lao zi zhi lue; Tao; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 《老子》眾多注本中,王弼格外重視道與「名」之間的關係。在《老子注》和〈老子指略〉裡,他將《老子》原文裡的「名」、「字」、「稱」、「謂」四個詞語特別獨立出來,加以討論,並有所區隔使使用。祭而,王弼註解《老子》時,為何會特別強調「名」、「字」、「稱」、「謂」的不同?他如何用這些詞語?這些問題皆涉及王弼如何處理語言與道之間的指稱關係。因此,本文擬先探討王弼注《老》之文中如何分析「名」、「字」、「稱」、「謂」等術語,並佈以西方語言哲學之論,進而研道不可言的涵義,最後,以此說明為何王弼需要強調道不可名。 |
英文摘要 | Most of Chinese philosophers insist that dao 道can’t be designated by a name. among them, Taoists think that is impossible for us even know what dao is. This is because, for them, dao is a whole and it can’t be divided by anything, even by a name. but I think, this is a paradox because: if we can’t indicate what dao is, why taoists, including Laozi 老子, worte so many essays and books aobut dao? Wnag Bi 王弼 tries to solve this problem by making a distinction between ming 名(name) and cheng 稱 (designation). For Wnag Bi a name (ming) defines something in the empirical world and on the contrary, cheng is a “referred designation”. For example: if we choose same terms like “dark (xuan玄)” or “deep (shen深)” for represent what dao is, we are just using same designations (cheng) and not real name (ming). So, for Wang Bi, although dao can’t be named, nevertheless it can be indicated by same designation. My study main purports are: to analysis the difference between ming and cheng; elucidates how Wang Bi deals with the complex relation of dao and language; and finally tries to explain why Wang Bi points out the dao cannot be designated by a name (ming). |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。