張横渠的哲學

一張横渠的著作及其時代張載,字子厚,宋長安人,因家住在鳳翔郿縣横渠镇,學者稱为横渠先生。生於宋天禧四年(公元一○二○),卒于宋熙寧十年(公元一○七七)。他的主要著作是正蒙。當時曾從正蒙乾稱篇中提出二段寫在書室的兩牖上。東曰砭愚,西曰訂顽。程伊川提議改為东銘西銘。據朱熹呂祖謙所編近思錄的引用書目,張横渠的著作,正蒙以外,有文集、易說、禮樂說、論語說、孟子說、語錄。明代人所編的張子全書,包括:西銘、東銘、正蒙、经学理窟、易說、語錄、文集、拾遺。經學理窟為近思錄引用書目所未列,其中羼雜有程伊川的話,顯然有後人附益之筆。近思錄引     

Introduction to the Special Theme on ＂Philosophy of Language,Chinese Language,and Chinese Philosophy＂

This special theme section concerns ＂Philosophy of language, Chinese language, and Chinese philosophy,＂ presenting （with its own distinct focus） the general theme of an ongoing international collective research project, ＂Philosophical Issues concerning Chinese Language and Development of Contemporary Philosophy of Language,＂ the initial results of which are presented in the four articles here.     

Philosophy, the “unknown knowns,” and the public use of reason

There are not only true or false solutions, there are also false questions. The task of philosophy is not to provide answers or solutions, but to submit to critical analysis the questions themselves, to make us see how the very way we perceive a problem is an obstacle to its solution. This holds especially for today’s public debates on ecological threats, on lack of faith, on democracy and the “war on terror”, in which the “unknown knowns”, the silent presuppositions we are not aware of, determine our acts.     

From the Characterization of ‘European Philosophy of Science’ to the Case of Philosophy of the Social Sciences

How distinct is European philosophy of science? The first step is to characterize what is or might be considered as ‘European philosophy of science’. The second is to analyse philosophy of the social sciences as a relevant case in the European contribution to philosophy of science. (1) ‘European perspective’ requires some clarification, which can be done from two main angles: the historical approach and the thematic view. Thus, there are several structural and dynamic things to be considered in European philosophy of science and compare with other conceptions: (i) the topics discussed; (ii) the contents proposed; and (iii) the style of thought used. (2) The case of philosophy of the social sciences is relevant for the historical approach and for the thematic view. Historically, the Erklären–Verstehen methodological controversy arose in this continent, where the main authors and most of the influential approaches are located. Thematically, we can consider the contributions made by these European approaches to philosophy of the social sciences. They give us some distinctive features of European philosophy of science.     

What is Radical Interpretation? Davidson,Fodor, and the Naturalization of Philosophy

Jerry Fodor and Ernest Lepore have recently criticized Davidson's methodology of radical interpretation because of its apparent failure to reflect how actual interpretation is achieved. Responding to such complaints, Davidson claims that he is not interested in the empirical issues surrounding actual interpretation but instead focuses on the question of what conditions make interpretation possible. It is argued that this exchange between Fodor and Lepore on one side, and Davidson on the other, cannot be viewed simply as a naturalist reaction to non-naturalist philosophical inquiry. Through a careful excavation of the hidden assumptions and commitments underlying this debate, we recognize a more serious disagreement over the intellectual obligations of naturalism; a position with a firm hold on current philosophical imaginations. In the process, we gain a new appreciation for how such commitments shape these naturalist positions, and recognize that any resolution to this specific debate will require careful attention to the divergent commitments that are its real source.     

Philosophy and the ‘anteriority complex’

The project of naturalising phenomenology is examined within the larger context of the philosophy of science. Transcendental phenomenology, as defended by Husserl, in opposition to the naturalistic enterprise, reflects a particular way of thinking about philosophy and its relationship to the empirical sciences that stands as an obstacle to the project of naturalisation. This paper develops a critique of a basic assumption made in this conception of philosophy, namely that it is possible to ask and answer questions concerning knowledge in the abstract, prior to and independently of the various investigative contexts which are the immediate concern of practicing scientists. To successfully naturalise phenomenology, we need to abandon this conception of philosophy.     

哲學史與政治——論胡適哲學史工作和他底反動的政治路線底聯係

近來展開的對胡適思想批判是馬克思主義對資產階級思想的又一次的嚴重的鬥争。最近美帝國主義同蔣介石賣國集團已經簽訂了所謂“共同安全條約”,美帝國主義企圖憑此條約永遠佔據我們的神聖领土台灣、澎湖;蔣介石賣国集團企图憑此條約把這一部分領土賣絕。對於這種罪惡的企圖,中国人民真是萬分憤怒,對於胡適思想也更加痛恨。因為胡適過去是,現在還是美蔣底御用學者。他底在政治上學術上的思想,是美帝國主義對中國文化侵略底一種工具。胡適現在底行動,正是他幾十年來所堅持的在政治上學術上的思想底一貫的發展與邏輯的結論。因此我們更不能容忍胡適思想在解放後走向社會主義的中國,還有任何殘餘。     

What is the Philosophy of Information?

Computational and information-theoretic research in philosophy has become increasingly fertile and pervasive, giving rise to a wealth of interesting results. In consequence, a new and vitally important field has emerged, the philosophy of information (PI). This essay is the first attempt to analyse the nature of PI systematically. PI is defined as the philosophical field concerned with the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of information, including its dynamics, utilisation, and sciences, and the elaboration and application of information-theoretic and computational methodologies to philosophical problems. I argue that PI is a mature discipline for three reasons: it represents an autonomous field of research; it provides an innovative approach to both traditional and new philosophical topics; and it can stand beside other branches of philosophy, offering a systematic treatment of the conceptual foundations of the world of information and the information society.     

从對待哲學遗產的观點方法和立场批判胡適怎樣塗抹和诬蔑中國哲學史

一哲学,如毛泽东同志所指示的,是“関於自然知識和社会知識的概括和總結。”(整頓党的作風)。依據馬克思列寧主義的理論,哲学史是唯心論与唯物論鬥爭的歷史,本質上是唯物論發展的歷史,是一定的意識形態適应着一定的社会形態而发展的歷史,是把各种階級的利益和要求曲折地表現而為理論鬥爭的歷史。哲学史的領域不同於自然史和社会史的領域。哲学和其他意識形態一樣,經濟发展以最後的動力规定着哲学的發展,階級的利害關係规定着哲学的傾向。同時,哲学也和其他意識形態一樣,有其相对的独立性,經濟發展对它的支配作用是在傳統     

Philosophy Makes No Progress,So What Is the Point of It?

Philosophy makes no progress. It fails to do so in the way science and mathematics make progress. By “no progress” is meant that there is no successive advance of a well‐established body of knowledge—no views are definitively established or definitively refuted. Yet philosophers often talk and act as if the subject makes progress, and that its point and value lies in its doing so, while in fact they also approach the subject in ways that clearly contradict any claim to progress. This article presents evidence for, and a theoretical explanation of, the view that philosophy makes no progress, concluding with an account of what philosophy is and what the point and value of it is. Philosophy should not be shy about being what it is, nor should it pretend to be what it is not. What it is should be reflected in philosophizing and the way it is taught.     

雪顿节,在哲蚌

初入西藏，就赶上了雪顿节。这是仅次于藏历新年的盛大节日。藏语“雪”即酸奶，“顿”即宴的意思，其来历与佛教有直接关联。释边牟尼佛在世时，出于悲悯凡夫僧众会在无意中杀生的考虑而特规定，僧人在夏季虫蚁活跃期要给夏安居——在寺中静修。自十五世纪宗喀巴大师创立以持戒为主的格鲁教派后，藏地佛寺就恢复了这一规则。当给夏完毕时，亲人们就会上山迎接归来的修行者，在回家的路上，他们要吃酸奶，边歌边舞，尽情享受家人团聚的幸福与喜悦。这一习俗后来便被正式确定为雪顿节。上山迎接亲人的活动演变成为僧俗共聚，一年一度的展示大…     

“張横渠的哲學”一文讀後感

我閱讀了張岱年先生所著:“張横渠的哲学”一文后,我感到把張横渠推崇為:“北宋時代最偉大的唯物論者”“建立了卓越的唯物論哲学体系”这個論點是值得研究的。我提出幾點不同的認識如下: 一倫理學說張岱年先生說:“在倫理学方面張橫渠有顯明的進步性,他鼓吹封建時代所可能有的平等博愛思想,他借用墨子兼爱作道德的基本準則”,张先生說西铭中:“……民吾同胞,物吾与也。大君者吾父母宗子,其大臣宗子之家相也……”这一段話的含義是:“横渠这种理论,把一切人看作兄弟,自君主以至最窮苦的人都是天地之子,在这個意義上都是平等。”“在当時歷史條件下还是有進步意義的。”     

Philosophy versus Literature? Against the Discontinuity Thesis

According to what I call the ‘Discontinuity Thesis,’ literature can never count as genuine philosophizing: there is an impermeable barrier separating it from philosophy. While philosophy presents logically valid arguments in favor of or against precisely formulated statements, literature gives neither precisely formulated theses nor arguments in favor of or against them. Hence, philosophers do not lose out on anything if they do not read literature. There are two obvious ways of questioning the Discontinuity Thesis: first, arguing that literature can indeed do what philosophy is generally taken to do, and, second, arguing that philosophy is not, in fact, the presentation of logically valid arguments in favor of or against precisely formulated statements—what it does is closer to what literature is generally taken to do. I use a combination of these two strategies to argue that philosophy is not as intellectually straightforward as it is advertised to be, and literature is not as intellectually impoverished as it is generally taken to be.