頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | The Different "Diff'erance" of Field-Being between Lao-Tze and Derrida |
---|---|
作 者 | 黃筱慧; | 書刊名 | 東吳哲學學報 |
卷 期 | 5 2000.04[民89.04] |
頁 次 | 頁143-157 |
分類號 | 110 |
關鍵詞 | 延異; 場; 有; 靜默; 符號; Diff'erance; Field; Being; Silence; Sign; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 本論文將以延異(diff'erance)概念為主軸,針對中國哲學家老子與法國哲學家德希達(Jacques Derrida)在「場-有」(Field-Being)關係性中分別扮演的角色。延異既是指出一種可以看出卻不能聽出的差異性,這兩者之間的「延異」差異之處,可以在道家的歸根復命之狀間,有別於德希達的可見於符號的靜默之異。老子云:「致虛極,守靜篤,萬物並作,吾以觀復。夫物芸芸,各復歸其根。歸根曰靜是謂復命,復命曰常,知常曰明,不知常,妄作,凶。」在靜與復之間,我們回復到道的無為而無不為。在人面對符號時,延異意謂著以符號為走向區異的開始,人不去解讀反而是一種走向不同的與有創意的可能,在符號只是符號的意義下,文本中的意涵使人可以聽到原本聽不出的異,此異之可見處,只存在於主體與同一符號的地域(Field)相遇之下,有之(Being: Defering/Differrng)後則由延緩將區異自行面向了創作的主體。 在靜與作之間,在延與異之間的不同形式的延異,均可在符號之場(Field)與符號指向之有(Being)間緩緩地靜默開展。 |
英文摘要 | The aim of this paper is to interpret the difference between two kinds of differance in Jacques Derrida and Lao-Tze's theories. And in both different approaches to this concept we can learn more from watching than from hearing. Ancient Chinese philosopher, Lao-Tze chose to approach the root (歸根) and the silence (靜) in order to get his way of understanding all the different presentations of all things, here in the paper. we will introduce his original sentences for his observation about the return under silence. If the silence opens for us one same approach for both of their theories, what kind of different diff'erance do they have between their approaches of silence? What we really want emphasis is that only inside of the Field (the Field as writing or as none-writing), the diff'erance of Being can proceed in silence. And the concept of silence links subjects and signs that they choose as objects and turn both subjects and objects to be in one Field-Being, then we get the diff'erance from deferring and differing in silence. So by finding an entrance as “in silence”, the term as Field-Being can be grasped from this silence. and only when we know how to learn from the diff'erance in silence, then we can begin our task to this philosophical term. The link between the silence in diff'erance and the silence by “Ming” (明/名), which will lead us to the understanding of the Field-Being. For Derrida he proceeded from silent reading and different writing; for Lao-Tze he proceeded by starting from different presentations of all things and how to observe the returning from these differences. Lao-Tze thought that even things which had different kinds of appearances, but their differences are their ways for showing the returning to the root, and only by the simple and natural appearances, the silence is equal to the returning to the root. The Field needs the Being of silence. and the Being of silence can exist inside both of the writing and none-writing. With very different directions to the approach of Field-Being, these two philosophers chose the silence. Derrida used his silent and strange a to interpret the Field-Being. And Lao-Tze's observation from none-writing can also interpret the Field-Being from silence. the returning and the “Ming” (fate) both present only inside of the normal appearances of things. They are in different opposites, Derrida shows the silence in strange mode; Lao-Tze shows the silence back to normal mode. We will say that they are different philosophers by their languages. but from the philosophy of Field-Being, silence links the “-” to the Field. And for the Field-Being of the philosophy itself, Derrida and Lao-Tze also represent two kinds of opposites that maintain different descriptions in philosophy, but from Field-Being, the Being of silence presents them in the same Field. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。