澄清概念是承诺立场的前提:再论“民族哲学”的含义

A Reclarification of the Term “National Philosophy”

我在《可以在何种意义上谈论"民族哲学"?》一文对"民族哲学"(national philosophy)的含义进行了梳理,伍雄武先生就此撰文与我商榷。我认为,伍先生的商榷整体误解了我的文章,将我澄清"民族哲学"概念时引述的若干观点误读成我本人的学术立场,对此我在下文择要回应。我坚持认为,对"民族哲学"的概念向来存在着政治学维度的和人类学维度的不同用法;对"哲学"概念也可以从单数形式语词和复数形式语词两个角度来加以解读。1930年代提出的"金岳霖问题"刻画了后发国家学界普遍面临的"两难处境"。

This paper is a response to Professor Wu Xiongwu’s critiques on my article In What Sense Can We Talk About‘National Philosophy’published in the journal Open Times(2019.No.5).My article gives a close examination and systematic clarification of the different usages of the term"national philosophy",makes a distinction between the political and the anthropological implications of the term and then explains its singular form and plural form in the history of philosophy.Professor Wu gives a critique of quite a few statements cited by me from the works of other scholars,but he has mistaken them for mine.This paper will again clarify the political and anthropological dimensions of the concept of"national philosophy and points out the dilemma facing the academia in late-developing countries proposed as"Jin Yuelin’s question"in the 1930 s.