论文部分内容阅读
在20世纪30年代,冯友兰与维特根斯坦两位哲学家一次“意味相投”的交谈和对“不可说的”东西的浓厚兴趣,把我们的视野锁定在“不可说的”问题论域上。冯友兰要用“负的方法”“讲”出“不可说的”形而上学世界,而前期维特根斯坦则以“沉默”的方式待之。我们认为,前期维持根斯坦的“不可说”论是建立在西方哲学传统的“客观实在”基础之上的,而冯友兰“负的方法”是建立在中国哲学传统的“体验的存在”之上的。这也意味着,是否承认“体验的存在”的本体论意义上的合法地位,将决定着冯友兰与前期维特根斯坦哲学的不同路向以及所彰显出的中西哲学精神的异同。
In the 1930s, Feng Youlan and Wittgenstein’s two philosophical conversations and their intense interest in “unspeakable ” things locked our vision in the “unspeakable ”Problem on the domain. Feng Youlan should use “negative methods ” “say ” “can not say ” metaphysics world, while the earlier Wittgenstein is “silent ” approach to be. In our opinion, the “unspeakable” theory of maintaining Gentile in the early period is based on the “objective reality” of the Western philosophical tradition, whereas Feng Youlan’s “negative method” is based on the traditional Chinese philosophy Existence of Experiencing. This also means that whether or not we recognize the legal status of “the existence of experience” in an ontological sense will determine the similarities and differences between Feng Youlan’s philosophy and the earlier Wittgenstein’s philosophy and the Chinese and Western philosophical spirits he has demonstrated.