期刊文献+

中国哲学 妾身未明?——关于“反向格义”之讨论的回应 被引量:12

On the Nature and Role of Chinese Philosophy:A Response to Discussions on Fanxiang Geyi
原文传递
导出
摘要 在关于反向格义的讨论中,各种观点之不同涉及到了更基本的问题,即"中国哲学"意味着什么,其性质为何?身份为何?有人认为中国哲学实质上是经学和子学,因此仍然是民族精神的"表达者"和"承载者",要建立中国哲学的主体性,就必须重新回归到本有的模式,用我们自身的语言表达自身的思想;有人则强调中国哲学已是现代学科,本质上只能是"比较哲学",因此试图在拒斥西方哲学的情况下建立中国哲学的主体性,是既无必要也不可能的。观点的对立反映了一种相当广泛的分歧,说明研究者对于中国哲学之身份与功能、目的与方法的多样性、复杂性缺少反思与交流,缺少共识与准绳。这对中国哲学这一学科的成熟与发展是极为不利的,对此应该有所正视和改变。 Responses to my article on fanxiang geyi ( reverse analogical interpretation) have expressed a number of divergent views. Among them, two opposing views about what Chinese philosophy is seem useful to consider. One contends that Chinese philosophy is a modern academic discipline, essentially comprising comparative studies between Chinese thought and Western philosophy; thus, it is necessary and helpful to introduce Western philosophical concerns into studies of Chinese philosophy. The other insists that Chinese philosophy is actually the tradition of scholarship addressed to Confucian classics and individual thinkers; thus, we should cleave to that tradition and avoid using Western terms and theories, which may induce distortion of ancient Chinese thought. These two positions reflect the current situation of the field in their vague and confused reference to the term ' Chinesephilosophy,' a problem mainly rooted in the complexity of the nature and role of thought in Chinese cultural and intellectual history. The concept of Chinese philosophy was molded in the early 20th century under the influence of Western academics and in explicit comparison with modern Western philosophy. In this sense, Chinese philosophy is intrinsically a modern academic discipline and does not necessarily reject the introduction of Western philosophy to its study. Nevertheless, Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism constitute the main subjects of research in Chinese philosophy, and these represent and embody Chinese traditions of value, distinct from the role of modern Western philosophy as a purely knowledge and theory-based field of investigation. To improve research in Chinese philosophy, it is important to recognize and distinguish the multi-faceted nature and roles of Chinese philosophy in the modern world to further clarify our objectives. Excellence in the study in Chinese philosophy should be predicated on improving our understanding of its complex nature and roles.
作者 刘笑敢
出处 《南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2008年第2期74-88,共15页 Journal of Nanjing University(Philosophy,Humanities and Social Sciences)
基金 Hong Kong Government Competitive Earmarked Research Grant(CUHK 4573/06H)
  • 相关文献

参考文献32

  • 1刘笑敢.“反向格义”与中国哲学研究的困境——以老子之道的诠释为例[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学),2006,43(2):76-90. 被引量:100
  • 2郭晓东.《也谈中国哲学的研究方法--对“中国哲学的合法性”及“反向格义”说的回应》,朱刚,刘宁主编.《欧阳修与宋代士大夫》,上海:上海人民出版社,2007年,第320-328页.
  • 3任继愈.《关于道德经》,李申,陈卫平主编.《哲学与宗教》第一辑,上海:上海古籍出版社,2007年.
  • 4张汝伦.邯郸学步,失其故步——也谈中国哲学研究中的“反向格义”问题[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学),2007,44(4):60-76. 被引量:37
  • 5刘笑敢.《儒家不能以道家为忌--试论牟宗三“以道释儒”之诠释学意义》[J].人文学报(台湾中央大学),2001,(24).
  • 6刘笑敢.从注释到创构:两种定向两个标准——以朱熹《论语集注》为例[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学),2007,44(2):90-102. 被引量:16
  • 7刘笑敢.《郭向之自足逍遥与庄子之超越逍遥--论诠释方向之转折及其评价标准问题》,《中国哲学与文化》(第二辑:注释,诠释,还是创构?),桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2007年,第126-151页.
  • 8张祥龙.《中国哲学与文化》(第二辑:注释,诠释,还是创构?),第394-395页.
  • 9张祥龙.《现象学的构成观与中国古代思想》[J].普门学报(台北),2004,(22).
  • 10《老子-年代新考与思想新诠》.台北:东大图书公司,1997年,第77-78页.

二级参考文献103

共引文献162

同被引文献157

引证文献12

二级引证文献20

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部