摘要
丁耘和吴飞从生育与制作现象的区别入手,对中西哲理的思想关系展开了讨论。他们的论争涉及中西哲学的始点与道路两个方面。吴飞对始点的差异把握更为准确,丁耘则对道路的差别感受更深。但无论始点还是道路,双方的论述都有不少不尽意之处,尤其没有把两者结合起来考察。生育与制作现象确实可以视作中西哲学不同的思想着眼点,但只有结合取象与定义这两种不同的思维方式,才能对中西哲理的差异作出更全面的把握。
Dao and Being are guiding-words in Chinese and Western philosophy.Both are related to nature because they are derived from ancient observations of natural phenomena,and they are also used to identify the origin of nature.The phenomena to which they point and the philosophical motivations guiding their thinking are similar.Although the notions of Dao and Being aim to grasp the metaphysical reasons behind natural phenomena,they ultimately establish two fundamentally different sets of philosophical systems.Since the early encounters between Chinese and Western philosophy,there have been many different perspectives on this difference.Overall,it mainly focuses on the present forms of Chinese and Western philosophy,and there are not so many visible traces to be found in their fundamental roots.If we can concentrate on how early philosophers extracted Dao and Being from the observation of natural phenomena and compare the differences in their methods,it would greatly benefit our understanding of the differences between Chinese and Western philosophy.The recent discussion between Ding Yun and Wu Fei is centered on this perspective.Referring to the difference between fertility and manufacturing,Ding Yun observed that,although Aristotle's theory of four causes has a background in manufacturing experience,it is more reflected in the self-sufficient activities shared by natural fertility and practical wisdom because the characteristic of this self-sufficient activity is the unity of efficient and final causes.There is a common insight between this interpretation and the ontology of New-Confucianism.Unlike Ding Yun's integration of fertility and manufacturing,Wu Fei explicitly holds that there are fundamental differences between fertility and manufacturing,because they represent two different philosophical modes of thought.In the manufacturing mode,form is considered eternal and unchanging,while material is in a state of uncertainty,creating a dichotomy between form and material.On the contrary,the"Dao of birth"that metaphorically refers to the phenomenon of sexual intercourse and fertility is different.In the process of fertility,there is no such dichotomy between form and material.In my opinion,this debate involves two aspects:the starting point and the way of thinking.In the first aspect,both Ding Yun and Wu Fei realize that the phenomenon of fertility and manufacturing played an important role at the beginning of Chinese and Western metaphysics.As for the second aspect,it is mentioned by both but without a sufficiently deep demonstration,and there are also some misunderstandings.I take it as the difference between"symbol-taking"(取象)and definition.In fact,the phenomena of fertility and manufacturing were once of concern to ancient philosophers in both China and the West,but it ultimately led each to two fundamentally different metaphysics.The reason lies in their different ways of thinking towards the starting point.Definition is taken as extracting the general from the individual.In contrast,""symbols"also transcend perceptual phenomena,but the"symbol"that is grasped is not the universal and timeless generalized essence of things,but a temporal image presented in the process of time.How to demonstrate the possibility of this temporal image,and how to distinguish it from rhetoric thinking and primitive thinking,will constitute a further discussion of the characteristics of ancient Chinese and Western metaphysics,as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages.
出处
《哲学动态》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第6期59-69,128,共12页
Philosophical Trends
