查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 「批判」與「誣指」:關於黃光國《超越與實在:牟宗三的科學觀》第二章的一些問題之商榷
- 道家式的「執的存有論」--「成心」與「八畛」
- 依「一心開二門」之思想架構看天臺宗「一念無明法性心」之特殊涵義
- 與超越現象學對話:胡塞爾等論生活世界與我的回應
- 當代新儒學家牟宗三先生在中國哲學底思維形態上之創闢性的建樹與革新
- 關於現象與物自身的統合與物自身的行動轉向問題(下)
- 關於現象與物自身的統合與物自身的行動轉向問題(上)
- 現象與物自身:從康德[Kant, Immanuel]到史陶生[P. F. Strawson](論史陶生對康德之批評)
- 純粹力動現象學與超越現象學
- 論「人籟」、「地籟」、「天籟」喻在《莊子.齊物論》篇中的結構性意義
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 「批判」與「誣指」:關於黃光國《超越與實在:牟宗三的科學觀》第二章的一些問題之商榷="Critique" and "False Accusation": A Discussion on Some Issues in Chapter Two of Hwang Kwang-Kuo's "Transcendence and Reality: Mou Zongsan's View of Science" |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 林安梧; | 書刊名 | 中華本土社會科學期刊 |
| 卷 期 | 5 2024.12[民113.12] |
| 頁 次 | 頁13-30 |
| 專 輯 | 紀念黃光國教授的學術與思想 |
| 分類號 | 128 |
| 關鍵詞 | 超越的; 超絕的; 先驗的; 現象; 物自身; 兩層存有論; 稻草人謬誤; Transcendence; Transcendent; Transcendental; Phenomenon; Thing-in-itself; Two-tier ontology; Straw man fallacy; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| DOI | 10.30213/JCISS.202412_(5).0002 |
| 中文摘要 | 本文旨在對黃光國教授的《超越與實在:牟宗三的科學觀》第二章提出批評, 指出他對牟宗三的理解存在誤解和誣指。本文認定牟宗三是康德主義者,而非 邏輯實證論者,其哲學體系基於康德哲學並融合儒道佛三教思想。黃光國執拗 的指出牟宗三將「transcendental idealism」誤譯為「超越的觀念論」,並強調應 翻譯為「先驗的觀念論」,實際上這只是翻譯語彙的變遷問題。黃光國的批評犯 了「稻草人謬誤」,誤將牟宗三的翻譯視為系統性偏誤。牟宗三的哲學體系是通 過儒道佛三教來消化康德,他並非實證主義者,其核心觀點是「兩層存有論」 和「一體之仁」。本文指出,牟宗三晚年翻譯維特根斯坦的《邏輯哲學論》,但 並未贊同其哲學觀點,也不贊同後期維特根斯坦的「日常語言分析學派」。黃光 國在批評牟宗三時,未能全面理解康德哲學及牟宗三的哲學體系,導致誤解和 誣指。本文強調,牟宗三的哲學成就無可置疑,其對康德哲學的消化與創新, 以及對儒道佛三教的融合,都是學術界的寶貴財富。故本文呼籲學者在批評前 應深入理解被批評者的思想體系,避免因誤解而造成不必要的學術爭議,並點 出「業力的因果性」不容忽視。 |
| 英文摘要 | This article aims to critique Chapter Two of Hwang Kwang-Kuo’s “Transcendence and Reality: Mou Zongsan’s View of Science,” pointing out misunderstandings and misrepresentations in his understanding of Mou Zongsan. The article asserts that Mou Zongsan was a Kantian, not a Logical positivist, and his philosophical system is based on Kantian philosophy and integrates Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Hwang Kwang-Kuo stubbornly points out that Mou Zongsan misinterpreted “transcendental idealism” as “超越的觀念論” and insists it should be translated as “先驗的觀念論”, which is actually just a matter of changing terminology. Hwang’s criticism commits the “straw man fallacy”, mistakenly viewing Mou Zongsan’s translation as a systematic error. Mou Zongsan’s philosophical system digests Kant through Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism; he is not a positivist, and his core ideas are “two-tier ontology” and “one body of benevolence.” This article notes that Mou Zongsan translated Wittgenstein’s “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” in his later years but did not endorse his philosophical views, nor did he agree with Wittgenstein’s later “ordinary language analysis school.” Hwang Kwang-Kuo’s criticism of Mou Zongsan fails to fully understand Kantian philosophy and Mou Zongsan’s philosophical system, leading to misunderstandings and misrepresentations. This article also emphasizes that Mou Zongsan’s philosophical achievements are unquestionable; his digestion and innovation of Kantian philosophy, as well as his integration of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, are valuable assets to the academic community. Therefore, this article calls on scholars to deeply understand the thought system of the criticized before critiquing, to avoid unnecessary academic disputes caused by misunderstandings, and points out that “Karmic Causality” should not be overlooked. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。