摘要
莫卡德是他所谓的“阅读”行为的倡导者,追求一种对特定文本中特定段落的直接、可持续的阅读方式。在我们的“哲学文本”和几种“哲学翻译”实践中,为了证明这种实践的正当性,我们不但不会排除对这些经典复杂的从文学、历史、语文学,尤其是最近兴起的考古学角度进行的阐释,我们甚至还要充分利用以上的诸种方法。之所以这样是因为我们希望尽可能地领会这些文本最为广博的涵义,以此消弭因我们自身学科或哲学观点带来的限制性的影响。我们借此希望能够推翻哲学界中未予宣布的一种假说———一种危险的倾向于种族主义的假说———这种假说将地理学中的规则,而非哲学规则当作它排斥他者的标准,以此来“忽略”非盎格鲁-欧洲的哲学叙事。与莫卡德不同,我们将永远也不会默许将中国的哲学归结为“思想”而非真正哲学的论断。我们认为最优秀的哲学阅读方式———分析性的、美国式的以及欧洲大陆式的———不但不会使我们贬低这些文本,反而只会丰富我们对它们的阐释。
Mφllgaard is an advocate for what he calls the practice of ＂reading＂ - the need for a direct, sustained engagement with this particular passage in this particular text. In our ＂philosophical reading＂ and in the several ＂philosophical translations＂ in which we have tried to justify this reading, far from excluding the sophisticated literary, historical, philological, and most recently, archaeological understandings of these canons, we have sought to take as full advantage of them as we can. Indeed it is because we are committed to the value of the broadest possible understanding of these texts that we want to challenge what has been an unfortunate limitation imposed on our reading of them by our own discipline, philosophy. We axe committed to overcoming the unannounced assumption within the professional discipline of philosophy - an assumption drifting perilously close to racism - that it can appeal to geographical rather than philosophical criteria as its principle of exclusion, allowing it to thus ＂ignore＂ non - Anglo - European philosophical narratives. Unlike Mφllgaard, we will never acquiesce in the condescending claim that China has only ＂thought＂ rather than real philosophy. It is our position that the best philosophical readings - analytic, American, and indeed Continental - add to our interpretations of these texts rather than detract from them.
出处
《求是学刊》
CSSCI
北大核心
2006年第2期22-25,共4页
Seeking Truth
关键词
中国哲学
类推
阐释
Chinese philosophy
analogy
interpretation
