頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 內在與超越如何並存﹖--謹以此文為李振英教授賀壽=How Can Immanence and Transcendence Co-exist﹖--A Paper Dedicated to Professor Gabriel Ly |
---|---|
作 者 | 傅佩榮; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
卷 期 | 26:10=305 1999.10[民88.10] |
頁 次 | 頁941-944+998-999 |
分類號 | 128 |
關鍵詞 | 內在超越; 外在超越; 天人合一; 人與上帝; 無神主義; Internal transcendence; External transcendence; the Union of the heaven and man; Man and god; Atheism; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 有關中西文化的異同,可以有各種概括的說法,這些說法卻未必能明白地表達其中的含意。試問「天人合一」或「內在超越」是指什麼?而「神人對立」或「外在超越」又是何意?想要理解這些概念的內涵,李振英教授的大著《人與上帝》有非常詳盡的討論,尤其是〈卷五〉的第二章--「從『內在和超越』二原理去了解中西無神主義的共同特質」--更是這一類討論的不可或缺的知識。依李教授的分析,「內在」與「超越」是兩個對立的原理,「把內在性原理當作絕對原理的內在主義者,必然要排斥所謂外在的或縱向的超越原理。」亦即談內在性就無法談超越性。以「內在超越」一語來說明中國文化的人,必須面對三個問題:一、動力由何而來?二、方向如何界定?三、能否自圓其說?向內不足以言超越,只有向外才可以。所謂「向外」,並非指內在不好,而是指內在「不夠好」。因為不夠好,所以主動要求要更好,而這種要求是指向「超越界」的。明白地說,「由內在去超越」是出發點,肯定人的主動性;「向外在去超越」是運作方向,肯定人與超越界有冥合的可能。 |
英文摘要 | There can be many general views on the differences and similarities of the western and Chinese culture, but what whose views express might not be clear to us. What would be the answers to the question: “What is the union of the Heaven and man?” or “What is immanent transcendence?” And “What is the conflict of Man and God?” or “What is external transcendence?” Professor Ly's book Man and Qoi has a very thorough discussion on these concepts, especially Book V chapter 2, “From the two principles, immanence and transcendence, to understand the common characteristic of atheism in the western and Chinese thought”. According to Professor Ly's analysis, immanence and transcendence are two conflicting principles. “Internalism which takes internal principle as the absolute principle necessarily expels the so-called external or vertical transcendental principle.” That is, talking of internality excludes the talk of transcendence. There are three problems one has to face up to, if one talks of Chinese culture in terms of “immanent transcendence”: 1) where is the driving force? 2) How do we define the direction? 3) Can we make sense of it? Internality cannot explain transcendence, only externality can. To talk of “externality” does not mean that internality is bad, but that internality is “not good enough”. Due to the fact that it is not good enough, it positively longs for the better. The kind of longing point to a “transcendent state”. Explicitly speaking, the starting point, “from immanence to transcendence”, affirms man's initiative; the direction, “from extenality to transcendence”, affirms the possibility of the combination of man and the transcendent state. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。