形而上学的“围城”——答谢崛博士

A Besieged City of Metaphysics——An answer with Doctor Xie Jue

谢崛的文章包含一系列谬误,一是对中西形而上学本身的构成方式有误解,因为中国传统形而上学不仅仅是实践论的,而西方形而上学也不仅仅是认识论的,双方的比较应该建立在这些要素的结构模式上,而不是有无某种要素上,否则是失之简单化的;二是对哲学史的诸多事实作了错误的描述,如对亚里士多德存在论的误解和断言康德以前没有人把形而上学与实践的人相联系,以及对西方伪善观的肤浅化,对康德自由观、黑格尔"现实的就是合理的"命题的误读等等,都表明他对西方哲学史不太熟悉;三是对这些事实的评价带有一种错位的偏见,这种偏见站在西方社会的角度看也许是有道理的,但放在中国社会的语境中却展示了一种"围城"现象;四是在善恶观、自由观、反思观、信仰观等等方面都体现了一种强烈的种族主义倾向,这是不利于对理论问题的澄清的。

Xie Jue＇s article contains a series of fallacies. The first of which is a misunderstanding of the construction of Chinese and Western metaphysics itself, because the Chinese traditional metaphysics is not simply based on practise and the Western metaphysics is not simply about epistemology. The comparison between them should be built on the specific structure of these two elements, but not on the presence of them. Otherwise, one is oversimplifying the issue. The second fallacy is that he made several wrong descriptions about the history of Philosophy. For example, he misunderstands Aristotle＇s ontology, and asserts that no one before Kant linked metaphysics to people＇s practice, as well as a superficial view of the Western hypocrisy, his misreading of Kant＇s concept of freedom and Hegel＇s ＂reality is reasonable＂ propositions, etc. The above mentioned evidences have shown that he was not familiar with the history of Western philosophy. The third is that his evaluation of these facts is with a kind of bias prejudice, which may be reasonable in the perspective of Western society, but in the context of Chinese society, it revealed a ＂Fortress Besieged＂ phenomenon. The fourth is that from his sense of good and evil, of freedom, of reflection and of faith, etc. , it reflects a tendency of being strongly racist, which is not conducive to the clarification of theoretical issues.