近些年法国哲学中的争论热点

A Dialogue on the Recent Philosophical Debates in France

作为法国新现象学家,马里翁主张:由于内在性与超越性、确定性与偶然性、绝对者与相对者都是在唯一的给予性(G egebenheit)内部区分开来的,所以,给予和自身给予就具有绝对的原初性和无条件的普遍性。"给予现象学"不仅要设法解决胡塞尔和海德格尔的"不可还原者"问题和"还原发动者"问题,还试图回应Sellars等人对"被给予之神话"的批评,从而获得与解释学实践进行实际沟通的渠道。莫伟民从四个方面对马里翁的观点发问:在应对哲学史上的"辩论焦点和断裂线索"上,"给予现象学"的策略相较于其他三种策略具有什么样的优势?在现象学于法国哲学中的发展、定位甚至命运问题上,"给予现象学"是否认同哲学也能在"实证主义"的形象下真正继续前进?在解释学与现象学的关系问题上,如何论述自身给予与他者给予、自身给予与自身解释以及他者给予与他者解释这三种关系?在法国哲学与马克思思想的关系问题上,"给予现象学"如何看待马克思思想?游淙祺主要从现象学理论出发对马里翁的主要论点提出看法,主张对胡塞尔和海德格尔的现象学思想都需要有生存经验的体会,论述了自己对"什么是被给予?""如何知道这些被给予?""什么因素阻碍了我们知道这些被给予?""如何排除这些阻碍?"这些重要问题的看法,并站在现象学立场询问:"被给予"概念在现象学与当代法国哲学对话中能起何种重要作用?我们在何种意义上可以谈论现象学在当代法国哲学的复兴?马里翁从捍卫"给予现象学"的立场出发精彩回应了两位对话者和其他提问者的主要问题,令我们对马里翁现象学思想及其发展前景有一个整体的、全新的把握和深入的思考。

This dialogue mainly concerns the recent philosophical debates in France and the validity of the Phenomenology of Givenness of Jean-Luc Marion. As one of the most influential representatives of the new generation of French phenomenology,Jean-Luc Marion argues that,the difference and separation between the immanence and transcendence,between the absolute and the relative,emerges from the inside of the Givenness（Gegebenheit） which is in principle the only origin. Consequently,the Givenness and self-given are of absolute originality and unconditional universality. The Phenomenology of Givenness tries not only to answer the questions about the ＂irreducible＂and about＂the initiator of reduction,＂but also to respond to the critique of the ＂myth of the given＂by Sellars,therefore to provide for itself a new possibility to connect and communicate with the hermeneutic practice. Mo Weimin proposes several questioning reflective points in the following four aspects： 1） What kind of advantages and validity does the strategy of the Phenomenology of Givenness have,in order to better deal with ＂the points of debate and lines of fracture＂in the history of contemporary philosophy,when it is compared with other philosophical strategies？ 2）Concerning the development,the status or even the ＂destiny＂of the phenomenology in French philosophy,will the Phenomenology of Givenness recognize that philosophy is also capable to advance in certain form of ＂positivism＂？ 3）Regarding the question of the relation between hermeneutics and phenomenology,how can we explain these following three kinds of relations,i. e. the relation between self-given and given-by-the other,between self-given and selfinterpretation and between given-by-the-other and interpretation-by-the-other？ 4） How to consider the relation between Marxism and the French philosophy,and what does the Phenomenology of Givenness think of the Marxism？ Chung-Chi Yu reexplains from his own understanding and clarifies from the standpoint of the phenomenological tradition the main ideas of Marion＇s presentation. And he argues that researchers should base their understanding,whether of Husserl＇s or of Heidegger＇s thinking,on their life experiences. With his own interpretation of some very important problems as＂what is the Givenness,＂＂how to comprehend the Givenness,＂＂what are the obstacles to our comprehension of the Givenness,＂ and ＂how to get rid of these obstacles,＂ Chung-Chi Yu further proposes the questions from the phenomenological point of view： what kind of significant roles can the concept of Givenness play in the dialogue between the phenomenology and the contemporary French philosophy？ And in what sense can we talk about the revival of phenomenology in the contemporary French philosophy？ Marion replies to the questions of the two interlocutors respectively and also to several questions raised by the audience,with intelligent and pertinent answers in defense of the Phenomenology of Givenness,which brings to us a global and renewed comprehension and further reflection of his phenomenological thinking and of its theoretical prospect.