论文部分内容阅读
柏拉图的洞穴隐喻提供了哲学问题的基本情景:它既包含纯粹哲学的思之擢升,亦包含实践/政治哲学的在世共处。海德格尔的洞喻解读意图道说柏拉图未曾言明的无蔽之真,这种赫拉克利特式含藏解蔽的斗争面相在对洞穴火堆的神庙疏解中得到彰显。施特劳斯的洞喻解读对纯粹哲学的存在之思保持了沉默,却对折返洞穴的苏格拉底式处境(城—哲冲突)进行了鞭辟入里的发微。总体来看,海氏和施氏代表了后尼采时代回返古希腊的两种不同路向:一方试图开启纯粹哲学重新开始的可能性,另一方试图直面哲学与诗之争的原初政治经验,尽管这两方面并未出离柏拉图的洞穴隐喻之外。海德格尔对太阳(善之相)的无视与施特劳斯对存在(西学之“体”)问题的沉默,使得一方堕入虚无主义(形式主义)的深渊,另一方陷入主义之争的泥潭。因此,重新回到古希腊,在柏拉图洞穴隐喻的处境下拷问两位哲人的致思努力和各自偏废,对我们理解柏氏思想的丰富意涵和执两用中,恰切评估海氏、施氏哲学思考的整体脉象、眼界高下及其理论得失,具有拨云见日的解蔽意义。
Platonic cave metaphor provides the basic philosophical problem: it contains both the ascension of pure philosophy and the coexistence of practice / political philosophy. Heidegger’s interpretation of the cave metaphor states that Plato’s unexplained unexplained truth is that Heraclitus’s mastery of the struggle is evident in the temple’s dissolution of the cave fire. Strauss’s cave-in interpretation kept silence about the existence of pure philosophy, but made a whiplash on the Socratic situation (city-town conflict) of the return cave. Overall, Heisch and Shih represent two different approaches to the return of ancient Greece in the post-Nietzsche era: one attempting to open the possibility of a return to pure philosophy and the other trying to face the original political experience of the struggle between philosophy and poetry, though this Both are not beyond Plato’s cave metaphor. Heidegger’s ignorance of the sun (goodness phase) and Strauss’s silence on the question of existence (Western learning) put one side in the abyss of nihilism (formalism) and the other into a struggle The quagmire. Therefore, to return to ancient Greece, in the metaphor of Plato caves torture the philosophies of both philosophers and their own negligence, to understand the rich meaning of Berliner’s thought and dual use, proper assessment of Hayashi, Shi Philosophical thinking of the overall pulse, horizons and its theoretical gain and loss, with the cloud to clear the meaning of the day.