查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 「『親民』『新民』之議」與儒學方法論的審思
- 波普.阿格西.費若本及其他--與阿格西[Joseph Agassi]教授對談
- 中部某大學學生藥物使用知識、態度及行為之研究
- 略論蔡元培倡導的大學精神的理論來源與實踐探索
- I. Lakatos, a Methodologist of Research Programmes or a Philosopher of Political Practices?
- 大學外宿生電器用品使用模式及生活型態之研究
- 前衛運動、現代主義與後現代主義(2)
- 社會重建的起點、市民社會的基地--社區大學之理念、特色與課程規劃簡介
- 大學學費之爭議和節制之措施
- 臺灣大學人類學系平埔族收藏研究與資料系統建立計畫之現況與發展
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 「『親民』『新民』之議」與儒學方法論的審思=The Methodological Concerns of Confucianism on the Controversy of "Hsin" and "Chin" |
---|---|
作 者 | 苑舉正; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
卷 期 | 42:9=496 2015.09[民104.09] |
頁 次 | 頁5-20 |
專 輯 | 全球化與儒學復興專題 |
分類號 | 120 |
關鍵詞 | 大學; 親新之議; 孔恩; 波普; 列維納斯; Dai Hsu; The Great Learning; Hsin and Chin; T. Kuhn; K. Popper; E. Levinas; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 中國哲學在21世紀受到全球矚目的事實,讓中外許多學者開始思考如何振興中國哲學。本文的主要目的即在於從科學方法論的視野,支持中國哲學的發展,但策略上應以兼顧中國思想的特殊性以及普遍性為主。這是一個深具前瞻性的目的,因為環視21世紀的全球化發展中,若是中國哲學僅企圖維持一門「在地學問」(a local learning)的話,那麼它的價值只是特殊文化之例證,無法促進知識之進步。為求達成中國哲學普遍性的目標,本文運用科學方法論之討論作為論證之核心。科學方法論從研究的方法著眼,讓一門學術活動符合科學的規範。在這個訴求上,上個世紀七○年代介於孔恩(T. Kuhn)與波普(K. Popper)之間,有關於科學歷史之典範論(theory of paradigm)以及科學哲學之否證論之爭議,適足以為我們提供一個思考的方向。同時,我們在本文中,將透過中國哲學中有關鍵意義的「親新」之議作為一個分析的例證,說明此議適足以為詮釋古代經典帶來現代意涵。最後,在賦予中國哲學現代意涵的企圖中,本文引用列維納斯(Emmanuel Levinas)詮釋《塔穆德》經典的例證,再次說明發展中國哲學的願景。列維納斯那種以去除神話為本,以倫理討論為根,並鼓勵所有人以問答方式參與討論的研究態度,為猶太人經典之詮釋,奠下發展成為普世哲學的基本精神。中國哲學之發展應以此為例,轉換成為追求現代性的學問。 |
英文摘要 | The fact that the Chinese philosophy is becoming more and more prominent makes a lot of scholars start to resuscitate it. The purpose of this paper intends to look at this fact from a methodological point of view. We support the resuscitation, but we also think strategically we should examine things in perspectives by taking into account both the particularity and universality of the Chinese philosophy. Without doing this, the Chinese philosophy remains a subject of local learning which cannot exert its utility of promoting the progress of world learning. For this reason, the paper’s focus will be on methodological arguments in order to achieve the far-reaching goal of making the study of Chinese philosophy a scientific subject. We therefore take the example of the debates between T. Kuhn and K. Popper in 1970s to demonstrate a new approach concerning our objective. Kuhn’s theory of paradigms and Popper’s theory of falsification offer us two approaches of thinking how to make the study of Chinese philosophy transform itself and become scientific. To this regard, the historical debates between “Chin” (親) and “Hsin” (新) exemplify a concrete instance for us to understand how to bring modern interpretation to the understanding of a piece of ancient texts. Finally, this paper takes E. Levinas’ interpretation of Talmud as a model to manifest what we are likely to do in interpreting ancient texts. Levinas’ methods of demythologization, of ethical basis and of encouraging debates are efficient ways of shifting the reception of the Jewish Talmud to its modern version of far-reaching philosophy. We at end of this paper conclude that the study of Chinese philosophy should follow this methodological track in order to make it a new subject of the modern age. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。