哲学史研究中的分析史观与语境史观

Analytical vs.Contextual:Two Approaches to Research on the History of Philosophy

哲学史编纂和研究的重心究竟在其哲学特性还是历史特性,是哲学界深为关注、也争议颇多的重要问题。罗蒂对理性重构和历史重构的区分凸显了对待哲学的历史的两种态度和编纂哲学史的两种范式,其背后则是理解哲学的两种原则:理性主义原则和历史主义原则。在方法论意义上,将罗蒂提出的理性重构和历史重构二分法转换为分析史观和语境史观两种理想形态,二者均面临如何澄清自身的思想语境和哲学观的问题,而这种反思会成为二者对话与沟通的契机。应保持分析史观和语境史观必要的平衡,既充分肯定哲学的历史性,又不能将哲学史编纂仅限于钩沉文本,阐明事实,推究因果,还要分析概念,重构论证,彰显意义。

What characteristics should be the focus of historiography and research on the history of philosophy:philosophical or historical? This significant problem has attracted much attention and also much controversy in philosophical circles.Rorty's distinction between rational and historical reconstruction highlights two attittudes toward the history of philosophy and two paradigms in the historiography of philosophy.Underlying them are two principles for understanding philosophy:rationalism and historicism.In terms of methodology,the dichotomy of rational and historical reconstruction can be transformed into two ideal forms,namely the analytical and the contexual approach to the historiography of philosophy.Each has to clarify its own intellectual context and concept of philosophy,a process of reflection that provides opportunities for dialogue and communication.The necessary balance should be maintained between the analytical and the contextual approch to the historiography of philosophy.We should fully address the historicity of philosophy,but at the same time,should go beyond simply dwelling on texts,facts and causality to analyze concepts,reconstruct arguments and reveal significance.