论文部分内容阅读
中国哲学与西方分析哲学(或分析传统的西方哲学)一直被认为是彼此遥远、无关乃至对立的。两种传统中都有很多人将对方传统的哲学实践视为仅仅具有边缘价值。 本专栏的目的在于,通过对中国哲学传统和西方分析哲学传统的比较分析来讨论哲学方法论问题,并由此研究中国哲学传统和西方分析哲学传统这两种具有特色的主要哲学传统如何能够相互学习、以互补方式携手共建共同的哲学事业(特别是在看问题的角度、指南性方法和工具性方法这些方面)。为此,我们择选了最近出版的、以上述目的为其主旨的专题文集《两条通往智慧之路?——中国哲学与分析哲学传统》(Bo Mou ed.,Two Roads to Wisdom?Chinese and Ana-lytic Philosophical Traditions,Chicago,USA:Open Court Publishing Company,2001)中直接讨论哲学方法论问题的若干文章陆续加以发表。出于篇幅上的考虑,除了戴维森的短文(该文集序言)之外,对这些文章都做了节译处理。
Chinese philosophy and Western analytical philosophy (or the analysis of traditional Western philosophy) have long been considered distant, irrelevant and even antithetical. Many in both traditions view each other’s traditional philosophical practices as mere marginal values. The purpose of this column is to discuss philosophical methodological issues through a comparative analysis of Chinese philosophical traditions and Western analytic philosophical traditions and to study how two distinct philosophical traditions of Chinese philosophical tradition and Western analytic philosophical tradition can learn from each other , Work together to create a common philosophical cause in a complementary manner (especially in the perspective of issues, guidelines and instrumental approaches). To this end, we have selected the recently published monograph “Two Ways to Wisdom - Chinese Traditions of Philosophical and Analytical Philosophy” (Bo Mou ed., Two Roads to Wisdom? Chinese) and Ana-lytic Philosophical Traditions, Chicago, USA: Open Court Publishing Company, 2001). Several articles that deal directly with philosophical methodological issues have been published one after another. For the sake of space, apart from Davidson’s essay (a preface to the collection), these articles have been translated.