再论教学能否回归“生活世界”——兼论“两郭”之争

Reiterate on the Possibility of Teaching Returning to the "Life World"——Also on the Debate between "Two Guos"

胡塞尔的"生活世界"有着多种意蕴,引发了人们的不同理解,并促成了郭华教授和郭元祥教授即"两郭"关于教学能不能回归"生活世界"之争。郭华教授偏重从"基底"角度来理解这一概念而提出教学不能回归"生活世界";郭元祥教授则偏重从"生成性"来理解它而认为教学必须回归"生活世界"。在对胡塞尔"生活世界"出场语境进行分析的基础之上,阐述了"生活世界"的提出有两个语境,即科学或知识的危机与人性的危机。就教学而言,能回归的是旨在解决人性危机中的"生活世界",而不能回归的是旨在为科学寻找明证性的"生活世界"。

There are many implications about E. Edmund Husserl＇s ＂life world＂ which has aroused people＇s different comprehensions and also led to the debate between ＂two Guos＂ on the view that whether the teaching can return to the ＂life world＂. Professor Guo Hua illustrates that the teaching can not return to the ＂ life world＂ from the angle of ＂foundation＂, while Professor Guo Yuanxiang holds the opposite standpoint from the angle of ＂origin＂. Two contexts of ＂life world＂ are put forward on the basis of the analyzing the backgrounds of Husserl＇ s ＂life world＂ ： the crisis of science or knowledge and human nature crisis. In terms of teaching, what it can return is to resolve ＂life world＂ of human nature crisis, but what it can not return is to look for the ＂life world＂ of evidence for the sciences .