摘要
胡志博士在《求索》杂志2016年第4期发表文章,认为《实践理性批判》中"所以准则虽然是一些原理,但并不是命令"一语存在文本疑误,应将句中的"命令"一词改为"定言命令"。胡志博士的论证存在着"形式逻辑层面"与"实践层面"的混淆,并由之造成了对康德文本难以避免的解释困难。康德原来的语句并非文本疑误,它在形式逻辑上将"准则"与"命令"明确为概念之间的对立关系,原文并不能依据"准则"与"假言命令"在实践上的对应关系而作出修改。在《实践理性批判》中,"形式逻辑层面"与"实践层面"是两条并行不悖的论述线索。这两个层面的区分可以建立起一个理解康德道德哲学的思维模式,这不仅有利于澄清康德道德哲学中诸多关键性的概念,还有利于实现对康德道德哲学逻辑推理结构的准确刻画。
In a recent paper published in Seeker, no. 4, 2016, Dr. Hu Zhi argued that the sentence in Critique of Practical Reason that is “Thus maxims are principles, but not imperatives” has a text error, and Kant should have added the word “categorical” before the word “imperative”. However, there is confusion between the aspect of formal logic and the aspect of practice in Hu Zhi s argument, which leads to difficulties on the interpretation of Kant's texts. Kant s original statement means that there is a conceptual opposite relation between maxim and imperative, which is a judgment made in accordance with the rules of formal logic. The original text can t be amended by the reason of the practical unity between maxims and hypothetical imperatives. In Critique of Practical Reason , the arguments on the aspect of formal logic run parallel to the arguments on the aspect of practice. The clarification of these two aspects can construct a theoretical model to interpret Kant' moral philosophy, which will help us not only to clarify the key concepts but also to accurately describe the logical structure of the arguments in Kant's moral philosophy.
作者
王凯立
WANG Kaili(Department of Philosophy, Xiamen University, Xiamen Fujian 361005, China)
出处
《衡阳师范学院学报》
2019年第1期53-60,共8页
Journal of Hengyang Normal University
