自我的形而上学与剩余

胡塞尔在《逻辑研究》中持有休谟式的“无我”立场,在《观念Ⅰ》时期却坚定地转向康德式的“有我”立场,胡塞尔出于何种动机和理由引入“纯粹自我”,这一问题几十年来一直是胡塞尔研究中的一桩公案.本文试图从萨特一古尔维奇对胡塞尔的“纯粹自我”的批判出发,通过剖析当代几种典型的对胡塞尔“纯粹自我”概念的阐释,进而结合胡塞尔手稿中的相关论述,尝试区分先验自我和纯粹自我,划定形而上学和先验现象学,由此澄清胡塞尔引入“纯粹自我”的真正意图,并且界定纯粹自我作为现象学的剩余在胡塞尔思想中的位置.     

范畴直观与形式显示——胡塞尔与海德格尔前期现象学方法的异同

胡塞尔《逻辑研究》中的范畴直观理论是本质直观的理论的原初形态,本质直观是胡塞尔现象学方法中的重要内容；本文要证明:胡塞尔与海德格尔的差异并没想象的大,《逻辑研究》中的范畴直观与符号理论也直接构成海德格尔形式显示的现象学方法,海德格尔前期在方法上极大的借用了胡塞尔的理论资源,甚至其问题意识也来源于胡塞尔现象学.     

胡塞尔的自我与自我困境

胡塞尔是西方哲学史上最后一个试图为哲学奠定一个严格科学基础的伟大哲学家。他开辟的事业成为现代哲学中最有影响的主流之一。但胡塞尔毕竟失败了。究竟是什么缘故导致胡塞尔整个体系的崩溃呢?这里我们就作为胡塞尔整个体系之基础的自我来作分析。     

完全还原的不可能性——兼论梅洛-庞蒂与胡塞尔现象学的差异

在梅洛-庞蒂的现象学中,对世界本身而非认识本质的关注,使他并未追随胡塞尔寻求认识的彻底性。他援用胡塞尔的现象学方法进一步追问,提出完全还原的不可能性问题。因为还原使他发现的不是胡塞尔所言的"明证性",而是本源的"两间性"。这看似是对胡塞尔现象学的否定,其实却是秉持现象学严格追问起源的精神,对胡塞尔现象学所做的改造。因而,梅洛-庞蒂的现象学不仅是胡塞尔现象学的开放性所允许的,也是对胡塞尔现象学的丰富和拓展。     

现象学与实在论--与索科拉夫斯基教授的对话

索科拉夫斯基(Sokolovsky),美国天主教大学哲学教授,卢汶大学博士,英语世界著名现象学家。主要著作有:《现象学导论》(2000)、《胡塞尔构造观念的构成》(1970)、《胡塞尔与现象学传统》(1988)、《胡塞尔的沉思:语言如何呈现事物》(1974)、《胡塞尔逻辑研究的结构与内容》以及《胡塞尔与弗雷格》。我于2004年在华盛顿做访问学者时,多次拜访了索科拉夫斯基教授,现将这些对话整理成文刊发,供读者参考。高:现象学是否属于现代主体主义传统,或者是反对主体主义传统而属于古代的实在论传统,仍然是一个需要澄清的问题。你曾说,胡塞尔的某些论证和…     

实在、符号与文化——许茨的现象学社会学理论

胡塞尔晚年提出了生活世界这一概念,由于胡塞尔几乎毕生都在追求实现先验哲学的理想,因而生活世界在胡塞尔的哲学中地位有限,关于生活世界的研究只被看作是通向超验现象学的两条新道路之一。而正是他的学生,阿尔弗雷德.许茨注意到了胡塞尔生活世界所包含的日常     

朝向更完整的实在性概念:胡塞尔与舍勒论实在与还原

胡塞尔的意识现象学与舍勒的生命形而上学表面上泾渭分明,但实际上,围绕着舍勒后期在实在性问题上对胡塞尔的批评,两者的工作缠绕在了一起。本文重新分析与检讨了舍勒在《唯心论与实在论》中针对胡塞尔所作的批评,以此说明,舍勒基于自己的实在理论对胡塞尔的批评是外在的,胡塞尔对意向性的生成分析是主体性视角下对实在性理论的贡献。同时,现象学还原也不构成胡塞尔和舍勒的实在性理论相互兼容的障碍。无论从有效意义出发还是从生命-抗阻出发理解实在性,其根本差别也只是在于方法论的视角的限制而非立场的相互冲突。胡塞尔的"原意见"和舍勒的"实在体验"等概念显示出的相互指引关系,表明二者可以共同组成一种更完整的现象学实在性理论。     

胡塞尔与布伦塔诺时间观的勘比度

胡塞尔时间意识现象学的出发点是布伦塔诺心理学的时间观。在HuaX中,胡塞尔对滞留要素的描述继承了布伦塔诺对原初联想中内容的分析,但是布伦塔诺认为时间是由想象创造出来的,而胡塞尔指出时间是感知的时间。在对意识行为的分析中,布伦塔诺是通过内意识学说来规避心理现象中的无限后退,胡塞尔在HuaX中是通过对一个无意识的意识的设定来解决这个难题,但在HuaXXXIII对此问题的探究中,胡塞尔通过对自身意识学说的阐述重又回到了布伦塔诺的内意识学说。     

对胡塞尔的自我与主体间性理论的批评与辩护

胡塞尔对所遭遇到的“唯我论”及其“主体间性”难题的解决 ,使阵营内外反对连连。我们注意到 ,大多的批评者的批评只是跟随胡塞尔的特定文本的牵引而发作的。 (参见倪梁康 :《现象学的意向分析与主体自识、互识和共识之可能》 ,载《中国现象学与哲学评论》第一辑 ,上海译文出版社 1995年版 ,第 94-95页 )这离确证胡塞尔在主体间性分析上所做努力的整个范围 ,还相距很远。据加达默尔说 ,胡塞尔把构造主体间性世界所遇到的困难看成是“表面的” ,立足于胡塞尔自己的立场去解决主体间性问题 ,首要的努力并不就是像多数人所理解的那样 ,是对唯…     

谱系与本质:生活世界的本体论

胡塞尔晚年尝试建立生活世界的本体论。他把生活世界视为一切意义的起源和归宿,把生活世界与科学和哲学相关联,以便阐明知识发生的线索和规律。按照胡塞尔的看法,在知识的构成中存在奠基与被奠基关系,在不同知识形态中存在明证性程度上的差等序列。胡塞尔研究生活世界的本体论是为了在各种生活形态和知识的谱系中发现本质的普遍联系和统一性。胡塞尔终其一生反对他那个时代的相对主义。我们能从胡塞尔有关生活世界本体论的学说中获得启发,找到反驳当今后现代主义的相对主义观点的某些理据。     

Nishida on Heidegger

Heidegger and East-Asian thought have traditionally been strongly correlated. However, although still largely unrecognized, significant differences between the political and metaphysical stance of Heidegger and his perceived counterparts in East-Asia most certainly exist. One of the most dramatic discontinuities between East-Asian thought and Heidegger is revealed through an investigation of Kitarō Nishida’s own vigorous criticism of Heidegger. Ironically, more than one study of Heidegger and East-Asian thought has submitted that Nishida is that representative of East-Asian thought whose philosophy most closely resembles Heideggerian thought. In words that then and now resound discordantly within the enshrined, established view of Heidegger’s relationship to East-Asian thought, Nishida stated uninhibitedly his own view of Heidegger in the noteworthy statement: “Heidegger is not worth your time… He…does not recognize that which is indispensible and decisive, namely, God.” This present study lays out for the first time in English, the significant differences between the metaphysical and political stances of Nishida and Heidegger, Nishida’s own critique of Heidegger, and Heidegger’s own rather dismal assessment of non-Western philosophy, all of which demonstrate a remarkable, hitherto unrecognized discontinuity between Heidegger and East-Asian thought.     

Is Heidegger an Orientalist or an Occidentalist European Philosopher? Disclosing the Political Factor behind Heidegger’s Representation of Chinese Thinking

Though Heidegger became a kind of conceptual companion of comparative philosophers, and a methodological example for interpreters of Daoist philosophy claiming that Zhuangzi or Laozi embodied the overcoming of Western “onto-theology,” Heidegger himself not only stressed his disbelief in the notion that Asian thinking could save the West from its “civilizational crisis” but also clearly claimed that Western thinking could emerge only through its distinction from the “mythical East.” However, at the same time, Heidegger criticized the decadence of the West, claimed the necessity of cultural rejuvenation, and then, with the failure of Germany to perform this task, seemed to turn to Chinese sources to find alternative solutions. How to understand Heidegger’s complex relationship with China? Is Heidegger an Orientalist or an Occidentalist European philosopher? Moreover, how to understand the subtle and troubling connections between Heidegger’s complex relationship with China and Heidegger’s highly “problematic” (to say the least) intellectual engagement with Nazi ideology? To what extent are Orientalism and Occidentalism are linked to Heidegger’s belief in the Nationalist-Socialists’ claims about “saving” the “European spirit”?     

Bearers of Transience: Simmel and Heidegger on Death and Immortality

This article reconsiders the relationship between Simmel and Heidegger. Scholars commonly argue that Simmel’s work on the topic of death and mortality influenced the early Heidegger’s work on the same topic, as evidenced in Being and Time. I argue however that Simmel’s work particularly in the Lebensanschauung should be read as challenging the basic presuppositions of Heidegger on death. I then compare the two on the issue of immortality in order to show that Simmel is much closer to the subsequent critics of Heidegger than he is to Heidegger himself.     

Heidegger’s Concept of Truth Reconsidered in Light of Tugendhat’s Critique

Ernst Tugendhat’s critique of Martin Heidegger’s conception of truth is an ongoing topic in Heideggerian scholarship. In this paper, I contribute to the ongoing exchange between defenders of Heidegger and those who are in agreement with Tugendhat. Specifically, I contend that Tugendhat’s criticisms fail to situate Heidegger’s account of truth within his broader phenomenological–hermeneutic project. In the end, Tugendhat’s critique is grounded upon philosophical assumptions that Heidegger is bringing under question by rethinking the concept of truth. I suggest that thinking through Tugendhat’s critique and attempting to formulate an adequate Heideggerian response gives us a richer understanding of both Heidegger’s account of truth and his general philosophical project.     

The coming of history: Heidegger and Nietzsche against the present

Heidegger’s 1938–1939 seminar on Nietzsche’s On the Utility and Liability of History for Life continues Heidegger’s grand interpretation of Nietzsche as a metaphysical thinker of presence. Nietzsche’s conceptions forgetting, memory, and even life itself, according to Heidegger, are all complicit in the privileging of presence. Simultaneous with his seminar, Heidegger is also compiling the notebook, Die Geschichte des Seyns (The History of Beyng), 1938–1940, wherein he sketches his own conception of history. Examining Heidegger’s criticisms of Nietzsche in the light of his contemporaneous notebook allows us to articulate Heidegger’s concern for history and for “what has-been” (das Gewesene) as a thinking of the “coming” of being. For Heidegger, to exist historically is to exist as something sent, something arriving, as something that “comes” to us. This coming of history is an ontological determination of all that is, no longer construed as present-at-hand objects, but as always arriving, relational beings. After presenting Heidegger’s view of the coming of history, I return to Nietzsche’s Utility and Liability of History to draw attention to an aspect of his text that is neglected by Heidegger, that of the political. The concluding sections of Nietzsche’s text confront the politics of the present, in both senses of the genitive, in order to rally against the closure of society. In the conclusion to the paper, I turn to the political dimension of Nietzsche’s thinking of history with an eye to how it might elude Heidegger’s interpretation.     

Overcoming Philosophy: Heidegger, Metaphysics, and the Transformation to Thinking

Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics is central to his attempt to re-instantiate the question of being. This paper examines Heidegger’s critique of metaphysics by looking at the relationship between metaphysics and thought. This entails an identification of the intimate relationship Heidegger maintains exists between philosophy and metaphysics, an analysis of Heidegger’s critique of this association, and a discussion of his proposal that philosophy has been so damaged by its association with metaphysics that it must be replaced with meditative thinking. It is not quite clear, however, how the overcoming of metaphysical thinking is to occur especially given Heidegger’s insistence that relying on human will to effect an alteration in thinking simply re-instantiates the metaphysical perspective to be overcome. While several critics have argued Heidegger has no solution to this issue, instead holding that thought must simply be open to being’s ‘self’-transformation if and when it occurs, I turn to Heidegger’s notion of trace and a number of scattered comments on the relationship between meditative thinking and willing as non-willing to show Heidegger: (a) was aware of this issue; and (b) tried to resolve it by recognising a reconceptualised notion of willing not based on or emanating from the aggressive willing of metaphysics.     

Heidegger,Communal Being,and Politics

There are two critical, but opposite interpretations of Heidegger’s understanding of being as a social ontology. One charges Heidegger with adhering to an anti-social “private irony,” while the other charges him with promoting a “self-canceling” totality. The current essay replies to these two charges with a discussion of Heidegger’s understanding of being as “communal being,” which is implicated both in the early Heidegger’s concept of “being-in-the-world-with-others” and in the later Heidegger’s keyword of Ereignis. It argues that Heidegger’s understanding of being as communal being is neither identical with totalitizing publicness nor the same as voluntaristic egotism. According to Heidegger, both the publicness of das Man and voluntaristic egotism are the real threats to humanity at present. Because of them, we human beings are in danger of being uprooted from the earth upon which we—as communal beings—have already and always dwelled and lived with others from the very beginning of human history.     

九鬼周造的偶然哲学与情绪论:和海德格尔哲学的比较

九鬼周造可谓真正与海德格尔的《存在与时间》进行交锋的日本哲学家。九鬼曾出席海氏两年讲座与讨论班,娴熟其哲学,留学归国后,花费毕生精力建构了偶然性的哲学。在此过程中,海氏成为其最大的思想对手。针对海氏可能性的存在论,九鬼提出偶然性的存在论。海氏主张此在的“被抛一筹划”“非本真一本真”“遮蔽一解蔽”等生存论结构,显露出其哲学涵盖了人从非现实的可能状态朝向现实的必然状态发展的向度。九鬼认为这种从可能存在到必然存在的发展过程中缺乏偶然性,正意味着潜在的无限可能性之丧失。支撑海氏的此在生存论结构的正是“畏”这一人的根本情绪。针对畏这个情绪,九鬼提出惊讶的情绪。因为他认为拥抱原始偶然的人,必会不断地涌现惊讶之情,生命也因此有无限的实现可能性。哲学亦须“始于惊讶,终于惊讶”,才能有无限的发展可能性。     

Pre´cis of Heidegger,Language, and World-disclosure

It is argued that Heidegger should be seen as something of a Kantian Idealist. Like Kant, Heidegger distinguishes two standpoints (transcendental and empirical) which we can occupy when we ask the question whether natural things depend on us. He agrees with Kant that from the empirical or human standpoint we are justified in saying that natural things do not depend on us. But in contrast with Kant, Heidegger argues that from the transcendental standpoint we can say neither that natural things do depend on us, nor that they do not. His reasons for saying this, however, represent an attempt to rework both Kant's temporal idealism and his temporal interpretation of the concept of an object (which shows up in Heidegger as a temporal interpretation of being). Heidegger suggests that Kant was led astray into a transcendental idealism about natural entities, because he did not understand the implications of transcendental idealism about being.     

The Black Notebooks: Implications for an Assessment of Heidegger’s Philosophical Development

Does the recent publication of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks require a re-evaluation of his thought? In the present text we will deal with this question and reach the conclusion that a change of theoretical perspective on Heidegger’s work is indeed justified. The franker and less cautious style of the Black Notebooks puts in the foreground stances that were already known, but were previously relegated to the background: it becomes possible thereby to establish that Heidegger’s philosophical views host a significant lot of unwarranted prejudices, which are incorporated in his picture of the ‘history of being’. We argue that in his process of radical questioning Heidegger progressively drops all available rational methods and epistemic criteria, and that this paves the way to the unwitting reception of personal prejudices in his theoretical frame: Heidegger knowingly abandons all the theoretical instruments that could enable him to discriminate between deeply felt prejudices and proper philosophical intuitions. We conclude our analysis by proposing some criticisms that should be acceptable also to scholars sympathetic with Heidegger’s thought. Heidegger’s vindication of an ‘erratic’ way of thinking, where the journey is more qualifying than the result, turns out to be incompatible with the assertiveness of the many unjustified claims disseminated across the Black Notebooks. Moreover, Heidegger wants to show the narrowness of an overwhelmingly dialectical and argumentative attitude, while his late style of thinking unwittingly discredits an alternative philosophical style, that widely appeals to a ‘principle of charity’ in the collaboration between author and reader.