犹太哲学:一种命定的宗教哲学--评《现代犹太哲学》

如果有人说西方哲学里有一种“基督教哲学” ,那么没人会感到惊讶 ,但是 ,如果说有一种“犹太哲学” ,那么许多人即使不感到惊讶 ,也会觉得很陌生。当《现代犹太哲学》 (傅有德等著 ,人民出版社 ,1 999,1 2 )一书摆在笔者面前时 ,我多少就有这种感觉。犹太民族贡献给西方世界乃至全人类的最伟大财富是以《圣经·旧约》为核心的一神教信仰。作为一种文明看 ,这种一神教信仰与古希腊文明的不同就在于 ,前者强调的是在践行神圣律法这种活生生的信仰实践中去领会上帝存在的真实性 ,去追寻和接受生活与世界的真实意义 ,而后者则要求在思想中 ,在…     

Philosophy for Children and the Reconstruction of Philosophy

In this paper I trace the dialogical and narrative dimensions of the philosophical tradition and explore how they are reconfigured in the notion of community of philosophical inquiry (CPI), the mainstay of the collection of novels and discussion plans known as Philosophy for Children. After considering the ontology and epistemology of dialogue, I argue that narrative has replaced exposition in our understanding of philosophical discourse and that CPI represents a narrative context in which truth comes to represent the best story, in a discursive location in which there are always multiple stories. Finally, I raise the issue of children's philosophical voice. Can children philosophize, and if they can, do they do so in a voice different from adults'? If so, what are the distinctive features of that voice? I assert that it is children's historical marginalization in the Western construction of rationality that now – as that rationality undergoes its crisis – makes of them, like women and other “natives,” privileged strangers to the tradition, who are, through CPI, enabled to enter it through dialogue and narrative.     

Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy

Philosophy can be divided into two systems, i.e. the vertical and the horizontal. Characterized with the creation of spirit and the logical evolution of concepts, the vertical system expresses historical reflections on the achievements of human culture. Meanwhile, the horizontal system focuses on the analysis of cognitive activities to explore the nature of subject and object, the elements of knowledge, and the basis of its certainty. Chinese philosophers, such as Hu Shih, Fung Yulan, Zhang Dainian, Mou Zongsan and Zhang Shiying, have previously explored the various definitions of philosophy. Their explorations manifest the internationalization of Chinese philosophy during different eras. This paper defines philosophy as human beings’ awareness of their environment and systematical reflections on their activities and ensuing consequences. As part of world philosophy, Chinese philosophy encapsulates the essence of Chinese culture, as the thinking method of Chinese people, and as a set of thought systems possessing a unique style.     

坐在扶椅上能追求到什么?

这是<哲学的哲学>一书的导言部分,作者指出了该书的基本思想是:第一,认为哲学不同于自然科学研究的例外论假定是错误的,甚至先验与后验之间的区分最终遮蔽了内在的相似性.第二,哲学与其他科学之间在主题上的差异,也不如我们通常认为的那样深.第三,当前的哲学主流未能清楚地阐明一种适当的哲学方法论,部分地是由于它陷入了对数据的心理学化的传统认识论错误.本书对哲学方法论的再思考,包含了在一种恰当的抽象水平上理解如何做哲学.     

Inferentialist Philosophy of Language and the Historiography of Philosophy

This article considers the implications of inferentialist philosophy of language for debates in the historiography of philosophy. My intention is to mediate and refine the polemics between contextualist historians and ‘analytic’ or presentist historians. I claim that much of Robert Brandom's nuanced defence of presentism can be accepted and even adopted by contextualists, so that inferentialism turns out to provide an important justification for orthodox history of philosophy. In the concluding sections I argue that the application of Brandom's theory has important limits, and that some polemics by contextualists against presentists are therefore justified.     

哲学观与马克思哲学观

哲学是反思的学问,这种反思不仅指向哲学思考的对象内容,而且指向哲学思考本身.哲学观的反思对于哲学的内容变革和体系调整,具有重要的前提性意义.深刻理解马克思的哲学观,是我们重新理解马克思哲学的基础.     

意识哲学,还是身体哲学——中国传统哲学理论范式的重新认识

在当代西方哲学面临从意识哲学向后意识的身体哲学的理论转型之际,其也为我们重新认识中国传统哲学的理论范式提供了契机。一种对中西传统哲学的深入比较将使我们发现,与传统西方哲学不同,中国传统哲学与其说是坚持一种“反思”的取向,不如说是坚持一种“反身”的取向;与其说是具有一种“祛性”的特征,不如说是具有一种“尊性”的特征;与其说是以“还原论”为其原则,不如说是以“系谱学”为其原则。凡此种种,都使中国传统哲学在其理论范式上,更多地体现为一种身体性哲学而非意识性哲学。故我们看到,在中国传统哲学中,古人不仅坚持“即身而道在”把身体提升到“道”的高度,而且还使该“身道”一以贯之地贯彻在诸如宇宙论、伦理学以及宗教观等中国古代的理论之中,使之成为通向中国传统哲学文化精神的真正的不二法门。     

Transcendental Philosophy As Capacities-First Philosophy

In this essay, I propose a novel way of thinking about Kant’s philosophical methodology during the critical period. According to this interpretation, the critical Kant can generally be understood as operating within a “capacities-first” philosophical framework – that is, within a framework in which our basic rational or cognitive capacities play both an explanatorily and epistemically fundamental role in philosophy – or, at least, in the sort of philosophy that limited creatures like us are capable of. In discussing this idea, I consider the complicated relationship between the explanatory and epistemic roles that such capacities play in Kant. I also sketch how this way of thinking about Kant’s methodology can illuminate the foundations of both his theoretical and his practical philosophy, before discussing some of Kant’s reasons for finding this approach to philosophy attractive. I close with a brief discussion of the contemporary relevance of this approach.     

Philosophy for Children and the Extrinsic Value of Academic Philosophy

External pressure on Higher Education Institutes in the United Kingdom has brought the question of the extrinsic value of academic philosophy into focus. One line of research into questions about the extrinsic value of philosophy comes from the Philosophy for Children (P4C) movement. There is a large body of literature about the benefits of P4C. This paper argues that the distinctive nature of the P4C pedagogy limits the claims made by the P4C literature about the extrinsic value of philosophy to claims about the value of P4C. While this is not a problem within the P4C literature that recognises these limitations, the paper makes three claims about why it is sometimes inappropriate to extend claims from research into the value of P4C to claims about the value of non-P4C philosophy. It argues that more research is needed to investigate the value of non-P4C philosophy.     

论医学哲学是什么和不是什么

弄清医学哲学是什么和不是什么,是医学哲学学科建设的基本问题.医学哲学理论构架的逻辑起点是生命健康,基本结构是医学哲学的本体论、认识论、方法论、价值论和发展观以及一系列医学范畴."哲学理论+医学实例"不是医学哲学.医学哲学具备超验的思维方式、反思的学术精神、创新的学术风格、开放的学术视野,而临床经验总结、紧跟时局的宣传、时髦热闹的效果,从者众多的场面不是医学哲学.     

论医学哲学是什么和不是什么

弄清医学哲学是什么和不是什么,是医学哲学学科建设的基本问题。医学哲学理论构架的逻辑起点是生命健康,基本结构是医学哲学的本体论、认识论、方法论、价值论和发展观以及一系列医学范畴。“哲学理论 医学实例”不是医学哲学。医学哲学具备超验的思维方式、反思的学术精神、创新的学术风格、开放的学术视野,而临床经验总结、紧跟时局的宣传、时髦热闹的效果,从者众多的场面不是医学哲学。     

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.     

本体论哲学批判是马克思哲学变革的实质

马克思主义哲学与“本体论”的关系问题 ,自 2 0世纪 80年代后期以来 ,一直是中国哲学界争论很大的焦点性问题之一。特别是在关于马克思主义哲学体系改革的讨论中 ,“本体论”成为一个各派都不能绕开的“结”。论争中学者们对马克思哲学实质的理解存在着很大的差异 ,但在作为争论核心的“本体论”概念上 ,人们似乎意见一致。一些学者坚持“哲学就是本体论” ;大多数学者虽然觉得这种说法太绝对了 ,但也仍然肯定“哲学必有本体论”。在这样的语境下 ,本文题目所给出的观点一定显得既突兀又费解。因此 ,为了使本文的论点和论证的展开有一个较…     

Philosophy,Early Modern Intellectual History,and the History of Philosophy

Historians of philosophy are increasingly likely to emphasize the extent to which their work offers a pay‐off for philosophers of un‐historical or anti‐historical inclinations; but this defence is less familiar, and often seems less than self‐evident, to intellectual historians. This article examines this tendency, arguing that such arguments for the instrumental value of historical scholarship in philosophy are often more problematic than they at first appear. Using the relatively familiar case study of René Descartes' reading of his scholastic and Aristotelian contemporaries, the article attempts to problematize this notion of pay‐off from an historian's perspective.     

暴力的哲学还是哲学的暴力?--与冈特·嫩宁的谈话

布洛赫重申自己是一个马克思主义哲学家.对他来说,唯物主义问题并不是简单的唯物主义问题,马克思主义中一开始就包含了唯心主义,哲学的最伟大业绩多半是唯心主义思想家完成的.暴力是阶级社会特有的现象,国家乃是暴力的潜力本身,国家的消亡是一个无暴力的、和平的过程.被压迫者的革命运动依然存在,大学生运动不会消亡.无神论与基督教并不是二者择一的问题,无神论与基督教的对话也不是一场徒劳的对话.世界过程本身处于过程之中,而这一过程尚未被获取,但也尚未被挫败."已知的希望"取决于把科学投入于希望的国度之中.存在第二真理,即乌托邦的-具体的真理问题,这是真理所固有的问题.