论文部分内容阅读
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。
Mocard is an advocate of what he calls “reading” and pursues a direct, sustainable way of reading specific sections of a given text. In our “philosophical texts” and in several “philosophical translations”, in order to prove the legitimacy of such practices, we not only will not rule out the complexity of these classic and complex literature from the history of literature, especially the recent rise of archeology Learn from the angle of interpretation, we even have to make full use of the above methods. This is because we want to understand the widest possible meaning of these texts as much as possible in order to eliminate the restrictive effects of our own disciplines or philosophical views. By this we hope to overthrow the undeniable hypothesis in philosophy - a hypothesis that is dangerous toward racism - which assumes the rules of geography rather than the rules of philosophy as excluding it The standard of the other to “ignore” non-Anglo-European philosophical narratives. Unlike Moccard, we will never acquiesce in concluding Chinese philosophy as a “thought” rather than a true one. We believe that the best way of reading philosophical readings - analytical, American, and continental European - not only does not depreciate us of these texts, it only enriches our interpretation of them.