康德哲学的先验逻辑及其意义

先验逻辑作为康德认识理论的核心内容,其意义不仅超越了逻辑学,而且超越了认识论,成为康德清算旧形而上学、实现形而上学革命的关键环节,也是康德哲学通过形而上学的意义转换贯通古代哲学与现代哲学的关键环节。探讨康德哲学的先验逻辑,对于理解西方哲学的演进具有十分重要的意义。一、先验逻辑的基本内容先验逻辑属于康德以感性认识为基础的(广义的)理性认识学说,包括知性认识和(狭义的)理性认识两个阶段。康德认为,先验逻辑与形式逻辑既有联系又有区别:就其联系而言,它们都能提供真理的消极条件(必要条件),因为形式逻辑像先验逻辑一样属于…     

康德先验哲学中的时间与"我思"问题

本文重点分析并论述了海德格尔在康德先验哲学中建立时间和“我思”的决定性联系的内在原因所在,同时指出了这个联系的建立对康德先验哲学的思想意义。     

存在、实践和理性──德国先验哲学的发展

德国先验哲学的发展，是从费希特、谢林到黑格尔完成的。它肇始于康德哲学以“物自体”为中心环节的二无论体系中的唯心主义方面，正是这个方面成为德国先验哲学的起点。康德的“自在之物”的感性经验如何与先验形式相统一，以及理论理性与实践理性相统一，这些重大问题在康德那里还是悬案。很明显，要克服康德的困境，归根到底还是要推倒那个引发这个困境的巨大障碍“自在之物”。于是，康德只是作为设想的“灵知世界”、“超感性有机体”的“统一”，在先验哲学那里便由“设想”变为了“存在”，发展出一整套理论。费希特的思辨的形而上学…     

胡塞尔的休谟哲学批判

胡塞尔的休谟哲学批判一方面回溯笛卡尔的“先验动机”,以笛卡尔的“先验动机”来考量休谟哲学的得失;另一方面则前瞻康德哲学,考量“休谟问题”对康德哲学的历史效应。通过这种“回溯-前瞻”的关联性分析,胡塞尔将休谟哲学织入近代哲学发展的统一性进程。因此,胡塞尔的休谟哲学批判本质上是以休谟哲学为切入点对整个近代哲学传统的系统反思。胡塞尔的休谟哲学批判的意义在于,它揭示了休谟哲学的深层意图与其经验主义怀疑论之间的根本冲突,指明了消解这一根本冲突的方向和路径,澄清了近代哲学发展的旨归,即现象学是整个近代哲学的隐秘的憧憬。     

反思批判:论福柯的现代性启蒙哲学

自20世纪70年代末以后,福柯多次重新解读了康德的《何谓启蒙?》。与60年代对康德认识论所代表的具有"人类中心主义"特征的"现代性"的批判态度不同,福柯从康德的启蒙概念中提炼出了一种不同意义的"现代性",这种"现代性"被他看作后康德时代现代哲学的根本。要理解这两种"现代性"以及福柯对它们截然相反的态度,我们必须区分康德"对他者的错层式不完全批判"与"建构自我服从的先验批判"。福柯区别于历史学、哲学史和历史哲学的历史-哲学实践,就体现在他对康德理性批判的历史批判和对康德启蒙概念的哲学继承上。     

E·卡西尔和他的文化哲学

E·卡西尔(Ernst Cassirer,1874—1945),德国人,早年受业于新康德主义马堡学派领袖柯亨门下,从事认识论、科学哲学和逻辑学研究,是柯亨最优秀的学生,他的著作有“马堡学派的学术总结”之称。但在严格的意义上,他不是真正的新康德主义者,在他的第一本独创性著作《实体概念和功能概念》中,已经严重地背叛了马堡学派立场,遭到柯亨的严厉指责。不过,在否认康德的物自体、取消感性认识的客观来源上,则是一致的。他作为康德先验原则的体现者,从两方面发展了康德理论。一是把康德的先天形式从静态的发展为动态的。他认为康德的天才在于看到经验的逻辑结构是先验的,不是经验的。但康德把这些先验结构看成是一成不变的东西,这就错了。在卡西尔看来,先天结构在人的意识中有个“观念     

黑格尔的自我意识理论与实践哲学基础的真正确立

由亚里士多德奠基、围绕人的实践一行为概念并进而探讨人的自由的本质及其根据问题的实践哲学传统,在近代哲学中由于出现认识论的转向而一度中绝。德国古典哲学重新确立实践哲学的优先性,接续了古代实践哲学的传统。康德创立先验逻辑把自由领域（即社会领域）从自然领域中划分出来,并确立实践理性高于理论理性的原则,显示了他对于实践哲学的复兴所具有的重要性。在另一方面,黑格尔通过对康德实践哲学的批判,极大地推进了实践哲学的发展。如果说康德剥离出纯粹自我意识,强调了道德意识的自主性、主体性,那么黑格尔则在自我意识理论中…     

近代欧洲哲学认识论中主客体问题的历史考察(三)

五德国古典哲学康德(1724-1804) 主客体问题,是从康德起,才开始在认识论中占有重要地位的。“先验”的涵义。康德的认识论是一种先验论,所以有必要明确“先验”一词在他那里的涵义。康德的所谓“先验”就是强调人的认识能力先于认识,沒有认识能力,不能有认识,滥用这种能力便会陷于谬误。“先验”一词涉及的不是本体而是认识,即它“不是指我们的认识对物的关系说的,而仅仅是指我们的认识对认识能力的关系说的。”所以康德讲先验并非否认客观世界的时间在先,而是强调认识能力对认识的逻辑在先。     

费希特哲学中的辩证法起源

本文是慕尼黑大学教授、《费希特全集》主编 R.劳特应中国社会科学院哲学所的邀请,在1986年11月18日作的学术报告。作者认为,费希特从推广与贯彻康德的先验感性论与先验分析论出发,建立了知识学辩证法。这种辩证法将主体与客体、自我的反思与物质的阻碍、自由与必然综合为一体,使理解社会存在成为可能,从而超出康德所见的范围,在最近两个世纪中开始了凯旋的进军。     

先验哲学的自然主义进路——以麦克道尔和塞拉斯为例对自然化理论的探究

麦克道尔认为他的经验主义观点既能够吸收康德先验哲学的精髓,同时又可以将其规范性的内核纳入自然主义的图景中。然而我们在分析他对一系列批判性观点的回应时发现,尽管麦克道尔努力以求的是保留康德思想的要义,但相较于塞拉斯对"直观"概念的理解,他对这一概念的改造实际上并没有获得更多的说服力。因为撇开谁的康德才是真正的康德不谈,塞拉斯对直观概念的构造性说明至少保住了先验哲学的彻底性。而麦克道尔则拒绝承认此类说明的必要性,然而却并没有为此提供充分的理由。     

Wilhelm Windelband and the problem of relativism

This paper analyzes the shifts in Wilhelm Windelband’s ‘critical philosophy of values’ as it developed hand in hand with his understanding of relativism. The paper has two goals. On the one hand, by analyzing the role that relativism played in his philosophical project, it seeks to contribute to a better understanding of Windelband's intellectual development in the context of historicism and Neo-Kantianism. On the other hand, by highlighting Windelband’s contribution to the understanding of relativism, it sheds light on an important episode in the history of that problem. The paper distinguishes between three phases in Windelband’s thinking and shows that his views about relativism changed in close connection with his conception of history. The early Windelband thought that historicism was compatible with absolute validity because he was firmly convinced of historical progress. The mature Windelband rejected progress as a means for justifying validity and put the problem of relativism into sharp relief. In response to the failure of his mature philosophy to fend off relativism, the later Windelband strengthened the role of history again. The paper concludes that Windelband’s significance lies not in his arguments against relativism, but rather in having furthered philosophical understanding of the problems at stake.     

‘There’s the record,closed and final’: <Emphasis Type="Italic">Rough for Theatre II</Emphasis> as Psychiatric Encounter

A co-authored collaboration between a theatre practitioner and a clinical psychiatrist, this paper will examine Rough for Theatre II (RFTII) and Beckett’s demonstration of the way records are used to understand the human subject. Using Beckett’s play to explore interdisciplinary issues of embodiment and diagnosis, the authors will present a dialogue that makes use of the ‘best sources’ in precisely the same manner as the play’s protagonists. One of those sources will be Beckett himself, as Heron will locate the play in its theatrical context through reflections upon his own practice (with Fail Better Productions, UK) as well as recent studies such as Beckett, Technology and the Body (Maude 2009) and Performing Embodiment in Samuel Beckett’s Drama (McMullan 2010); another source will be the philosopher Wilhelm Windleband, whose 1901 History of Philosophy was read and noted upon by Beckett in the 1930s, as Broome will introduce a philosophical and psychiatric context to the exchange. Windelband is now a neglected figure in philosophy; but as one of the key figures of Neo-Kantianism in the late 19^th century, his work was an important impetus to that of Rickert, Weber and Heidegger. Specifically, Windelband gives us the distinction between idiographic and nomothetic understanding of individuals, an approach that is of relevance to the psychiatric encounter. This academic dialogue will consider tensions between subjectivity and objectivity in clinical and performance practice, while examining Beckett’s analysis of the use of case notes and relating them back to Windelband’s ideas on the understanding of others. The dialogue took place in 2011 at the University of Warwick, and has since been edited by the authors.     

Philosophy as the In-Between

What is the difference between doing philosophy and doing the history of philosophy? Where should the line be drawn between “using” previous philosophers to make one's point and discussing what past philosophers claimed? In trying to confront these questions, this essay starts with a reflection on the difference between doing philosophy and doing the history of philosophy as proposed by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, and confronts it with a different one derived from the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. The ideas developed by Heidegger will then lead to a definition of “philosophy” and to some etymology-based reflections on what a “philosopher” is that Plato proposes in his “Symposium”. The essay continues by arguing that, when doing philosophy, it is necessary to return to philosophy's past in order to recoup philosophical momentum. The essay concludes with some reflection on the possible similarities between Plato's characterization of Eros as the first philosopher and the difference between doing philosophy and doing the history of philosophy.     

Philosophie der Philosophiegeschichte von Hegel bis Hartmann

Summary In this paper the author discusses the conceptions of the subject and the method of the history of philosophy by Hegel, Windelband, Dilthey, Hartmann, and other philosophers of the history of philosophy. The history of philosophy as a philosophical discipline was first connected by Hegel with the very system of philosophy. His history of philosophy was the closing and integrating part of his philosophical system. The critics have accepted the view that Hegel had determined the intrinsic regularity of the historico-philosophical development, but they rejected his identification of logical determinations of the idea with the sequence of appearances of philosophical systems in history. While Hegel followed the history of philosophical systems, Windelband followed the history of philosophical problems and concepts created for the solution of the same problems. Dilthey invented the method of understanding, which he applied to all products of cultural creativity of mankind through history. Dilthey substituted life for the Hegelian spirit. The life of the spirit expresses itself in language, religion, morality, art, philosophy and becomes evident only through history. History became by Dilthey the decisive form of the philosophical selfknowledge of man. The aim of Dilthey's spiritual-historical method was to follow the great role of cultural-historical factors in the shaping of philosophical doctrines. Contrary to Dilthey, Hartmann supports the problem-historical method. He was of the opinion that the history of philosophical problems contains the genuine historical continuity of philosophy. The philosophical problem is by nature the linking ring between history and philosophy.The conceptions of history of philosophy by all those philosophers are functionally dependent on their conceptions of philosophy.In addition to discussing the conceptions of the history of philosophy, of those four philosophers, the author also presents his own critical comments.     

The value of philosophy: A Canguilhemian perspective

This paper represents a philosophical reflection on the nature and value of philosophy itself. Georges Canguilhem somewhat scandalously argued that the fundamental value of philosophy does not lie in truth. He suggests that truth is a typical value of science because truth is what science says and what is said scientifically. Why would a philosopher depreciate his own discipline? And does he really do so? Or is there a different motivation: to help philosophy to become a much more self-confident voice? And if truth is no longer a value of philosophy, what value fits it better? The article follows Canguilhem in his conception of truth, science, and philosophy. It is against the background of these considerations that the specific revised anthropology of the scientist or philosopher is formed. The main question is what this means for current philosophy and why it could be inspiring for philosophers today.     

The peculiarity of the dialectical ideas of the Second Teacher,a prominent representative of the Muslim Renaissance

This paper investigates the development of dialectical concepts about the universe, being, metaphysics, scientific methods, and the knowledge of philosophers. The methods it uses are mainly theoretical and empirical methods, such as analysis and synthesis. Within the boundaries of the designated topic, it offers a systematic analysis of the historical periodization of Arab Muslim philosophy from the eighth century to the twentieth. The paper examines the activities of the prominent philosopher and mathematician Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Farabi, showing the circumstances of his borrowing certain forms, concepts, and structures from ancient Greek philosophers. The paper's main conclusion is that al-Farabi is a Second Teacher in modern philosophy, meaning the continuation in his works of the search for a scientific approach to the study of various forms of being.     

Nietzsche,postmodernism and the phenomenon of Arvydas Šliogeris in contemporary Lithuanian philosophy

This article is based on the presupposition that postmodern philosophy has been largely influenced by Nietzsche’s writings. The author raises the question of how Nietzsche and postmodern philosophy are interpreted in the contemporary philosophical discourse in Lithuania. The conclusion drawn is that many philosophy critics in Lithuania are interested in Nietzsche’s philosophy (Mickevi?ius, Sodeika, ?erpytyt?, Sverdiolas, Baranova) and in the problems of postmodern philosophy (Ker?yt?, Rubavi?ius, ?ukauskait?, ?erpytyt?, Sverdiolas, Baranova, Norkus). The article also raises a second crucial question: beyond the critics, are there any truly authentic postmodern thinkers in Lithuania? This article’s main hypotheses is that Arvydas ?liogeris’ philosophy is the best and perhaps the only example of original Lithuanian postmodern thought; it is based on, and interconnected with, the deeply inherited roots of existential thought in Lithuanian philosophical culture. The arguments for these hypotheses are as follows: first, ?liogeris is the first philosopher in Lithuania who has tried to reason in an interdisciplinary manner, e.g. trying to overcome the modernistic distinction between philosophy and the arts (especially literature, poetry, and the visual arts); secondly, ?liogeris’s philosophizing is indispensable to his writings—his texts are examples of an experience of writing as thinking and thinking as writing; thirdly, following Deleuze’s presupposition that the philosopher is a creator, one can see this creative aspect in ?liogeris’s approach. His texts show how it is possible to synthesize insights from philosophy and poetry.     

Yin and Yang,and the Hot and the Cold

Yin and Yang are important concepts in ancient Chinese philosophy.Western scholars have become more familiar with these two concepts recently,but for a long time almost no one considered comparing them with their own tradition such as the ancient Greek philosophy,and especially with the ideas of the Hot and the Cold in Presocratic philosophy.In this paper,I make an attempt to do exactly that,and especially make a detailed comparison between the thoughts of two ancient thinkers:Laozi and Anaximander.I discuss the thought of Yin and Yang in Laozi-who was the earliest philosopher making use of the concepts Yin and Yang-to express his cosmological thought in ancient Chinese philosophy.Comparatively,I discuss the ideas of the Hot and the Cold in Anaximander,the earlier among Presocratic philosophers referring to the Hot and the Cold as fundamental concepts used to establish his cosmological system.Through this comparison,I indicate that the similarity between ancient Chinese and Western traditions is far more significant than what people are used to imagining.     

分析哲学的兴趣:在哲学与生活之间--从批判理论和生活世界的视角对罗素和维特根斯坦的一个批评解读

分析哲学是有其人文和社会的兴趣与关怀的。本文试图从批判理论的视角．运用哲学与生活世界相关联的解释学方法,分别解读了分析哲学创始人之一的罗素的逻辑分析哲学与他作为一个哲学家的社会批判兴趣之间的关系,以及前期维特根斯坦的逻辑语言分析哲学和后期的日常语言分析哲学与维特根斯坦所属的生活世界的关系。指出分析哲学由于没有建立在对现代性的科学一形而上学思维方式和生活方式的足够反思基础上,所以它对形而上学的批判兴趣最终仍然导致了一种非批判的形而上学。     

Knowledge and Power in Plato’s Political Thought

Abstract

Plato justifies the concentration and exercise of power for persons endowed with expertise in political governance. This article argues that this justification takes two distinctly different sets of arguments. The first is what I shall call his ‘ideal political philosophy’ described primarily in the Republic as rule by philosopher‐kings wielding absolute authority over their subjects. Their authority stems solely from their comprehension of justice, from which they make political judgements on behalf of their city‐state. I call the second set of arguments Plato’s ‘practical political philosophy’ underlying his later thought, where absolute rule by philosopher‐kings is undermined by the impure character of all political knowledge. Whereas the complete comprehension of justice sanctions the absolute political power of those with this expertise, partial knowledge of justice disallows for such a large investment of power. Plato’s practical political philosophy argues for a mixed theory of governance fusing the institutions of monarchy with democracy in the best practical city‐state. Thus, Plato comes to realize the insurmountable difficulties of his ideal political thought, preferring a more practical political philosophy instead.