论文部分内容阅读
黑格尔从现代性与理性的视角出发,认为孔子没有思辨哲学,只有道德哲学;保罗.博维则从后现代与非理性的视角出发,认为孔子只是复制了他自称要终结的结构。对于黑格尔而言,思辨哲学的重要假想敌之一就是中世纪神学以及与之相关的非理性话语,但是这一假想敌并未在孔子与《论语》中出现。对于保罗.博维而言,关注边缘群体是其批判孔子的主要立足点,但是这一群体本身却并未在《论语》之中出场。事实上,《论语》的话语展开是一种关于生命的独白,全部内容都蕴含在个体生命的历程之中,一方面与黑格尔、保罗.博维等西方学人立足于理性与非理性所进行的思考与论述有着极大的不同,另一方面也限定了《论语》话语解释力的三重自我限度。
From the perspective of modernity and rationality, Hegel thinks that Confucius does not have speculative philosophy, only moral philosophy; and from the perspective of postmodernity and irrationality, Paul Bowei thinks that Confucius copied only the structure he claimed to end. For Hegel, one of the important hypothetical enemies of speculative philosophy is Medieval theology and its related irrational discourse, but this imaginary enemy did not appear in Confucius and The Analects. For Paul Beauvais, focusing on marginalized groups is the main standpoint for criticizing Confucius, but the group itself is not in the Analects. In fact, the discourse of The Analects is a kind of monologue about life, all of which is contained in the course of individual life. On the one hand, with Western scholars such as Hegel and Paul Beauvoir, they are based on rationality and irrationality The thinking and exposition made are very different, on the other hand, it also defines the triple self-limitation of the explanatory power of the Analects of Confucius.