頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 從勞思光的基源問題研究法析論哲學史的歷史成份=On the Historicity of History of Philosophy: An Examination of Lao Sze-Kwang's Fundamental-and-Original-Question Approach |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 吳啟超; | 書刊名 | 東方文化 |
| 卷 期 | 48:2 2016.03[民105.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁55-74 |
| 分類號 | 103.1 |
| 關鍵詞 | 勞思光; 哲學; 歷史; 哲學史; 基源問題研究法; Lao Sze-Kwang; Philosophy; History; History of philosophy; Fundamental-and-original-question approach; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| DOI | 10.30227/JOS.201603_48(2).0004 |
| 中文摘要 | “哲學史”有兩項成素:“哲學”與“史”。本文關心的是哲學史的歷史成份。有些對哲學史或哲學史家的工作抱有疑慮的人,可能擔心哲學史雖稱為“史”,但基於哲學史家的哲學興趣和哲學史本身的研究要求,將不免導致一部哲學史最終脫離了歷史的脈絡。因此,本文想要討論,哲學史著作在“述史”方面會否不可避免要面對一些嚴重困難,使得哲學史的“史”字徒具虛名?本文將聚焦於勞思光的哲學史研究方法,探討它在原則上能否成就一部無負於史的哲學史。全文分為三節。第一節概述文章的撰作緣起及討論範圍。第二節剖析勞思光的哲學史研究方法-基源問題研究法,並討論此方法如何試圖兼顧“哲學史”的“哲學”(理論展示及評價)與“述史”(忠於歷史真實)兩項工作。第三節將集中討論本文的核心課題:勞氏的研究方法在原則上能否寫出一部忠於歷史的哲學史。我們將提出三種疑慮並予以回應,從而引出本文的結論:勞氏的哲學史研究方法本有足夠的歷史關照,可以釋除上述三種疑慮。如果本文的論證成立,而我們對它的歷史關照又沒有更多的疑慮,則我們有理由說:嚴格依據這種方法寫出的哲學史,原則上有望成為一部忠於歷史的真實、而堪稱為“史”的哲學史。 |
| 英文摘要 | There are two elements of "history of philosophy", namely, "philosophy" and "history". This paper focuses on the latter. Some people would argue that given the nature of the subject and the primary concern of philosopher, it is inevitable that any studies by philosophers on "history of philosophy" would lose historicity. This paper examines whether such studies could be called "history". To illustrate this point, this paper focuses on Lao Sze-Kwang's approach to history of philosophy, to see whether it can preserve the historicity theoretically. Our discussion is divided into three sections. Section one is about the purpose of this paper and its scope. Section two analyses Lao's approach, Fundamental-and-Original-Question Approach (jiyuan wenti yanjiufa基源問題研究法). We will see how it attempts to take both "history" and "philosophy" into equal consideration. Section three deals with the core issue: whether Lao's approach can theoretically accomplish a history of philosophy which is faithful to history. I will try to respond to three kinds of criticism, and show that Lao's approach has indeed enough historical concern. Hence it could answer those potential criticisms. If we have no more doubts about its historical concern, then we can argue that a history of philosophy that strictly follows Lao's approach can hopefully be faithful to history and deserves its name. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。