Blog / ブログ



2013.07.04 川村覚文, 文景楠, 崎濱紗奈, 芮雪, 東西哲学の対話的実践

2013年8月に開催される予定の東京大学―ハワイ大学共同比較哲学セミナーの3回目の準備会の様子をお届けします。今回はRoger Ames先生の論文を読み、『中庸』を中心に中国的な形而上学の可能性を論じました。


6月17日(月)の準備会ではRoger T. Amesの“Reading the Zhongyong ‘Metaphysically’”という論文について前半を崎濱、後半を犬塚が担当した。

前半部では、西洋哲学と中国哲学における「形而上学(metaphysics)」概念の相違が論じられた。Amesの主張によれば、中国哲学は「非形而上学的形而上学(Ametaphysic Metaphysics)」であり、西洋哲学的形而上学からは解放された自由な読み方がなされるべきだとのことであった。こうした比較哲学の手法における長所・短所について活発な議論が繰り広げられた。



ディスカッションでは、Amesが用いる特殊な概念「ars ccontextualis」、「present-to-hand」等についての基本的な理解の共有を行うことができ、準備会としての役割が果たされた。






The study group on June 22nd focused on the discussion about Roger T. Ames’ “Reading the Zhongyong ‘Metaphysically’”. Taking the length of the paper into account, the presentation on Professor Ames’ paper was divided into two parts, the first half given by Xue Rui, and the second half by Tomomi Amakawa, with Kyungnam Moon as the host who gave us background knowledge about ancient Greek philosophy and how to comprehend several related notions in a comparative context.

Generally speaking, as the title of this paper has indicated, Prof. Ames tries to emphasize the necessity of reading Zhongyong in a metaphysical way. In the first half, by pointing out the difference between the concepts of “cosmology” in ancient China and Greece, he portrayed a brief introduction of the uniqueness of Chinese philosophy, covering Confucianism understanding of “existence”, drawn from a linguistic perspective, so to speak. Furthermore, as he has maintained in lectures of last year’s summer institute, relationality should be considered as the core of Confucianism. In the second half of the paper, Roger Ames goes on to describe the purpose of the Zhongyong, which emphasizes the importance of knowing one’s way around “myriad things” in terms of both the broadest perspective of experience, and exemplary human relations.

The point was brought up that the goals listed in the Zhongyong are very optimistic, perhaps even to the point of being idealistic and not easy to attain. Further discussion took place regarding whether or not there is room for individuality or personality in Ames’ argument.

(Xue Rui and Tomomi Amakawa)

Recent Entries

  • HOME>
    • ブログ>
      • 2013年度東京大学-ハワイ大学夏季比較哲学セミナー準備会(3)