论文部分内容阅读
本文阐述康德与克尔凯郭尔对命题“你应当爱邻者”概念化方案之间的同构性,以此澄明作为义务的爱所蕴含的存在论意义。为此,笔者首先回顾康德的概念化,即在“实践之爱”中,爱他者的本质是喜欢义务,而比喜欢更为根本的是尊重义务。在康德语境里,尊重是否定情感的情感,其本质是一种伦理决断,即否定以自爱为中心的欲求,而把意志的根据安顿于理性之中。这种转身蕴含着从现象到本体的跳跃,在理性之实践中达到思辨所未曾达到的目标,即主体与实体(作为物自身)之统一。在克尔凯郭尔思想中,爱是一个生成的概念,它蕴含着从爱欲(Elskov)到仁爱(Kjerlighed)的扬弃。类似于康德的尊重,它否定作为自爱的爱欲中的偏狭性和主观任性,达到以应当为中心的伦理义务。克尔凯郭尔对自爱的否定形成仁爱,其存在论意义为以“应当”超越时间之变易;康德对自爱的否定形成尊重,其存在论意义为以“应当”超越于以欲求为目的现象之必然性。在时间-永恒和现象-本体的二分法中,前者抵达永恒,而后者抵达本体,但它们都不能轻率地被读作为神秘的彼岸世界,而应当在于语境里被诠释为在道德行动者之内在决断:以应当是为是(to be what ought to be)。在两种概念化方案之间,其同构性正是作为义务的爱所蕴含的存在论意义。以此,本文能够为《爱的劳作》(1847年)提供一种哲学的诠释,并且避免对三阶段理论的一种常见误读:在克尔凯郭尔思想中,伦理并非次等的、可选的、待扬弃的人生境界;相反,在爱之中,伦理非但未曾缺场于第三境界,而且是其得以进入实存的枢纽。
This essay expounds the isomorphism between Kant and Kierkegaard’s conceptualization of the proposition “you should love your neighbors,” in order to clarify the ontological implications inherent in the love of obligation. To this end, I first review Kant’s conceptualization, that is, in the “love of practice”, the essence of love of others is like the obligation, and more than like the more fundamental is to respect the obligation. In the Kantian context, respect is the emotion of emotional deny, which is essentially an ethical decision that denies the desire to be self-centered and settles the basis of will into reason. This transformation involves the jump from phenomena to ontology and the unrealized goal of speculation in the practice of reason, that is, the unity of the subject and the entity as the thing itself. In Kierkegaard’s thought, love is a generated concept that contains sublation from Elskov to Kjerlighed. Similar to Kant’s respect, it denies the narrowness and subjectivity in his love as a self-love to achieve the ethical obligation that should be centered. Kierkegaard formed a kind of love for the negation of self love, and its ontological meaning was to change transcendence of time with “should ”; Kant respected the negation of self love, and its ontological meaning was based on “should ” beyond Desire for the purpose of the inevitability of the phenomenon. In the dichotomy of time-eternity and phenomenology-ontology, the former arrives at eternity and the latter arrives at the noumenon, but none of them can be read lightly as the mystical other side of the world but should be interpreted within the context of the moral actor Internal decision: to be what ought to be. Between the two conceptualizations, isomorphism is the ontological implication of the obligation of love. As a result, this article can provide a philosophical interpretation of “Love Work” (1847) and avoid a common misunderstanding of the three-stage theory: ethics is not inferior in Kierkegaard’s thought, Optional, to be abandoned realm of life; on the contrary, in love, not only did not lack of ethics in the third realm, and is able to enter the real hub.