论哲学思维方式的时代变革——兼评《哲学的憧憬——<形而上学>的沉思》

从近代到现代,西方哲学思维方式发生了明显的转变,这种转变表现为一种本体论的哲学思维方式向非本体论哲学思维方式的转变,不同哲学学派的非本体论哲学思维方式虽然各不相同,但大都表现为一种"人的回归",强调人的主体性地位和价值。探讨西方哲学思维方式的变革具有重要意义:一方面能够加深人们对哲学思维方式变革意义的理解;另一方面,能为我国哲学思维方式的变革提供借鉴和指导。     

顺化与逆化--道教哲学的思维特征

道教作为宗教 ,有它的宗教哲学 ,道教作为本土宗教 ,它的哲学就有明显的中国气派和特色 ,其影响深远。在道教哲学中 ,“化”是一个重要的范畴 ,它既是道教哲学得以成立的杆杠 ,也是道教思维的基点。“化”包括顺化与逆化两个文面 ,所谓顺化 ,即顺道生人 (物 ) ,属正向思维 ;所谓逆化 ,即逆道成仙 ,属反向思维。顺化与逆化 ,作为矛盾运动存在的两种形式 ,是道教认识事物所表现出来的正向和反向两种思维方式 ,它贯穿于道教的教旨、教义和炼丹术之中 ,成为道教哲学特有的思维特征 ,也是道教哲学对中国哲学的重大贡献。“化”的概念与道教的摄用…     

逻辑科学与思维效率

逻辑学是一门关于思维的科学,是迄今为止发展得比较完善的一门思维科学。我国近代思想家梁启超称墨家逻辑为“教智之言也”。近代西方影响甚大,被视为传统逻辑代表作的《波尔——罗雅尔逻辑》,明确地把逻辑学称作“思维的艺术”。作为思维工具的逻辑科学,多少年来一直服务于人类的日常思维和科学研究领域,为提高人类的思维效率起了     

中国哲学:"合法性"、思维态势与类型--兼论中西哲学类型

对中国哲学“合法性”的追问,是一个关于哲学到底是什么,以及中国哲学到底是什么的“元问题”。哲学作为对形而上学或者说本体的追问,由于思维态势的不同,可以区分为“对本体”与“自本体”两大类型。这两大类型决定了中西哲学各有其不同的基本特征,即西方哲学的思考方式是主客“二分”的,中国哲学的思考方式是“天人合一”取向的;西方哲学借助于形式逻辑的三段论论证,中国哲学则强调“人同此心,心同此理”的主体间性;西方哲学运用定义精确的概念语言,中国哲学则采取含义丰富的“意像语言”。未来中国哲学学术范式的创新,应当充分考虑到中国哲学的特质,并在融会中西不同哲学范式的基础上才有可能。     

严复对近代哲学变革的复杂影响

对于中国近代伪哲学变革，近代的几位主要思想家都曾作出了各自不同的贡献，但相比之下，严复的贡献更大、更全面。可以这样说，中国近代哲学变革的成就和不足、优点与缺点，都同严复有一定关系。他对中国近代哲学变革的影响是巨大而复杂的。中国近代的哲学变革，是在鸦片战争后“西学东渐”，中西文化交流融汇，先进的中国人向西方寻找真理的历史背景下发生的。中国哲学走向近代化，开始创造性转化，明显受了西方哲学的直接影响。而近代“介绍西洋哲学的，要推侯官严复为第一。”（蔡元培；《五十年来中国之哲学》）这是严复在中国近代哲学…     

舍斯托夫对哲学定义的理解

哲学是什么？胡塞尔认为哲学是反思,俄罗斯宗教哲学家舍斯托夫却认为哲学是一种斗争。实际上,这是理性哲学思维和圣经思维的对立。理性哲学思维基于人是“理性的人”的认识,通过“逻辑”的手段来寻找事物背后的根据,哲学是“爱智慧”。圣经思维却从人是“神性的人”出发,把“雷霆和闪电”作为自己的“逻辑”,把哲学当作“生死事业”,因而哲学是斗争。舍斯托夫对理性哲学思维进行了抨击,他对哲学定义的理解是基于俄罗斯宗教存在哲学的立场。     

一种个别性取向的实践哲学——评《理论思维与工程思维》

把关注的重点转向实践是当代哲学致思的一个基本趋向。但到目前为止 ,这一趋向在国内哲学界主要还只是表现在“元哲学”的层面上 ,只是以不同方式肯定了克服近代认识论哲学的现代实践哲学的必要性 ,至于这种哲学作为理论应该如何“操作” ,则尚未见有深入涉及者。徐长福的《理论思维与工程思维———两种思维方式的僭越与划界》 (上海人民出版社2 0 0 2年版。以下凡引该书只注明页码 )不仅自觉立足于现代实践哲学的立场之上 ,而且主要着眼于实践哲学的“操作”层面 ,用作者的话说 ,是在从事一种具有“个别性取向的实践哲学” (第 2 8页 )。…     

独·群:中国近代哲学内在矛盾浅析

中国近代哲学的突出特点就是冲出书斋面向社会,企图为现实变革和政治斗争提供方法和准则。现实需要的复杂性、多变性和紧迫性决定了中国近代哲学的肤浅与庞杂。在中国近代这个博引古今、包罗中西的哲学体系中,到处充满了各种明显的和隐藏的、有意识的和无意识的、进步的和守旧的矛盾与冲突。“独”与“群”则是这众多矛盾中最基本的一对。     

论取象思维方式──易学文化精神及其现代价值讨论之一

取象思维方式是中国传统的思维方式之一。这种思维方式是指在思维过程中离不开物象，以想象为媒介，直接比附推论出一个抽象事理的思维方法。它发展形成于《易经》，其本质是一种比附推论的逻辑方法，与整体思维互补并具有模糊性等特点。这种思维方式与抽象思维、形象思维、顿悟思维有联系又有区别，在中国传统哲学、文学艺术等领域发挥着不可替代的作用。取象思维方式是易学文化精神在现代思维方式中极具价值的部分。     

对葛瑞汉和陈汉生先秦哲学“理性”的考察

运用“理性”概念来诠释先秦哲学的确有助于揭示中国思想的特点,但同时也揭示不同学者对此概念运用的任意性。无论是葛瑞汉对中国古代哲学中存在理性论辩的宣称,还是陈汉生对中国古代哲学中没有“理性”概念的断言,都仅仅从两个不同角度说明西方对“理性”的传统定义并不能完全概括东西方的相应经验。这一解释模式所揭示的,不是中西方思维方式的差异,而恰恰是西方概念体系的局限。     

Logic,Logic, and Logic

In his recent paper in History and Philosophy of Logic, John Kearns argues for a solution of the Liar paradox using an illocutionary logic (Kearns 2007 Kearns, J. 2007. ‘An illocutionary logical explanation of the Liar Paradox’. History and Philosophy of Logic, 28: 31–66. [Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Paraconsistent approaches, especially dialetheism, which accepts the Liar as being both true and false, are rejected by Kearns as making no ‘clear sense’ (p. 51). In this critical note, I want to highlight some shortcomings of Kearns' approach that concern a general difficulty for supposed solutions to (semantic) antinomies like the Liar. It is not controversial that there are languages which avoid the Liar. For example, the language which consists of the single sentence ‘Benedict XVI was born in Germany’ lacks the resources to talk about semantics at all and thus avoids the Liar. Similarly, more interesting languages such as the propositional calculus avoid the Liar by lacking the power to express semantic concepts or to quantify over propositions. Kearns also agrees with the dialetheist claim that natural languages are semantically closed (i.e. are able to talk about their sentences and the semantic concepts and distinctions they employ). Without semantic closure, the Liar would be no real problem for us (speakers of natural languages). But given the claim, the expressive power of natural languages may lead to the semantic antinomies. The dialetheist argues for his position by proposing a general hypothesis (cf. Bremer 2005 Bremer, M. 2005. An Introduction to Paraconsistent Logics, Bern: Lang.  [Google Scholar], pp. 27–28): ‘(Dilemma) A linguistic framework that solves some antinomies and is able to express its linguistic resources is confronted with strengthened versions of the antinomies’. Thus, the dialetheist claims that either some semantic concepts used in a supposed solution to a semantic antinomy are inexpressible in the framework used (and so, in view of the claim, violate the aim of being a model of natural language), or else old antinomies are exchanged for new ones. One horn of the dilemma is having inexpressible semantic properties. The other is having strengthened versions of the antinomies, once all semantic properties used are expressible. This dilemma applies, I claim, to Kearns' approach as well.     

Modal Logic As Dialogical Logic

The title reflects my conviction that, viewed semantically,modal logic is fundamentally dialogical; this conviction is based on the key role played by the notion of bisimulation in modal model theory. But this dialogical conception of modal logic does not seem to apply to modal proof theory, which is notoriously messy. Nonetheless, by making use of ideas which trace back to Arthur Prior (notably the use of nominals, special proposition symbols which name worlds) I will show how to lift the dialogical conception to modal proof theory. I argue that this shift to hybrid logic has consequences for both modal and dialogical logic, and I discuss these in detail.     

Logic and Philosophy of Logic in Wittgenstein

This essay discusses Wittgenstein's conception of logic, early and late, and some of the types of logical system that he constructed. The essay shows that the common view according to which Wittgenstein had stopped engaging in logic as a philosophical discipline by the time of writing Philosophical Investigations is mistaken. It is argued that, on the contrary, logic continued to figure at the very heart of later Wittgenstein's philosophy; and that Wittgenstein's mature philosophy of logic contains many interesting thoughts that have gone widely unnoticed.     

Default Logic as Dynamic Doxastic Logic

Dynamic doxastic logic (DDL) is used in connexion with theories of belief revision. Here we try to show that languages of DDL are suitable also for discussing aspects of default logic. One ingredient of our analysis is a concept of coherence-as-ratifiability.     

Adaptive Logic as a Modal Logic

Modal logics have in the past been used as a unifying framework for the minimality semantics used in defeasible inference, conditional logic, and belief revision. The main aim of the present paper is to add adaptive logics, a general framework for a wide range of defeasible reasoning forms developed by Diderik Batens and his co-workers, to the growing list of formalisms that can be studied with the tools and methods of contemporary modal logic. By characterising the class of abnormality models, this aim is achieved at the level of the model-theory. By proposing formulae that express the consequence relation of adaptive logic in the object-language, the same aim is also partially achieved at the syntactical level.     

Quantum Logic as a Fragment of Independence-Friendly Logic

The working assumption of this paper is that noncommuting variables are irreducibly interdependent. The logic of such dependence relations is the author's independence-friendly (IF) logic, extended by adding to it sentence-initial contradictory negation ¬ over and above the dual (strong) negation . Then in a Hilbert space turns out to express orthocomplementation. This can be extended to any logical space, which makes it possible to define the dimension of a logical space. The received Birkhoff and von Neumann quantum logic can be interpreted by taking their disjunction to be ¬(A & B). Their logic can thus be mapped into a Boolean structure to which an additional operator has been added.     

Adaptive Logic Characterizations of Input/Output Logic

We translate unconstrained and constrained input/output logics as introduced by Makinson and van der Torre to modal logics, using adaptive logics for the constrained case. The resulting reformulation has some additional benefits. First, we obtain a proof-theoretic (dynamic) characterization of input/output logics. Second, we demonstrate that our framework naturally gives rise to useful variants and allows to express important notions that go beyond the expressive means of input/output logics, such as violations and sanctions.     

On Argumentation Logic and Propositional Logic

This paper studies the relationship between Argumentation Logic (AL), a recently defined logic based on the study of argumentation in AI, and classical Propositional Logic (PL). In particular, it shows that AL and PL are logically equivalent in that they have the same entailment relation from any given classically consistent theory. This equivalence follows from a correspondence between the non-acceptability of (arguments for) sentences in AL and Natural Deduction (ND) proofs of the complement of these sentences. The proof of this equivalence uses a restricted form of ND proofs, where hypotheses in the application of the Reductio of Absurdum inference rule are required to be “relevant” to the absurdity derived in the rule. The paper also discusses how the argumentative re-interpretation of PL could help control the application of ex-falso quodlibet in the presence of inconsistencies.