中国哲学的“回返”疑难
作者简介:张兵,陕西师范大学马克思主义学院副教授(陕西西安 710119)
摘要: 在最严峻的意义上,中国哲学的“回返”疑难指涉的是西方哲学话语意指中自身意义丧失的危机。从历史形态的演进来看,冯友兰−黑格尔式中国哲学“表达不足”的疑难驱动了近代中国哲学的范畴化运动,恰恰造就了福柯−萨义德式“表达过多”的疑难,进而导致了话语决定论的困境。牟宗三由“逆觉体证”所确立的“超绝主体”可以看作是对西方哲学话语的有意识的抵抗,但其奠基于主体性之上的“知性之存有论”阐释的不足,使其理论阐释恰恰服务于“存在即是被意指”的西方哲学话语实践。借助现象学“还原”运动的教益以及牟宗三存在论阐释的教训,中国哲学的“彻底回返”有赖于一种感性论的解析。这一解析表明,以身体所嵌入的隐默的知觉世界才是中国古人的存在论根基,无论是海德格尔式“站出”还是牟宗三希冀的中国哲学的“站出”,在根本规定性上都应是一个身体式“站出”。由身体的“站出”与“隐退”这一交织关联体所组成的“站出域”构成了主体性挺立的地基与存在论前提,同时,由身体双重性所指示的“语言与隐默世界的交织”也消解了中国哲学所谓的表达不足困境。甚至可以说,身体的“站出−隐匿”悖谬、身体与世界的“身−世”合一在根本上摒弃了存在论的概念式特征,在某种意义上更切近于中国哲学的“源在”,这一“源在”不仅消化了“知识论”,也在根本上消化了“存在论”,从而使中国哲学走出西方哲学的概念框架,彰显出中国传统生活世界的朴素情调及其中屈伸往来的幽远意义。
The Problem of Chinese Philosophy’s Return
- Available Online:
2019-02-01
Abstract: In the most severe sense, the " problem of return” of Chinese philosophy mainly refers to the crisis of the loss of its own meaning within the signifying practice of Western philosophical discourse. Historically, the statement that Chinese philosophy has the flaw of Feng Youlan-Hegel’s insufficient expression, gave rise to the movement of Chinese philosophy’s categorization, which led to the problem of Foucault-Saidian over-expression, namely, the problem of discourse-determinism. Against this background, " the transcendent subject” established by Mou Zongsan with the method of NiJueTiZheng( " 逆觉体证” )can be viewed as a willingful resistance to the Western philosophical discourse, but the deficiency of Mou’s ontological interpretation based on the subjectivity makes his theory serve the Western philosophical discourse practice. With the help of the teachings of the phenomenological reduction and the lesson of Mou Zongsan’s ontology, it can be said that the radical return of Chinese philosophy depends on the manifestation of a kind of aesthetic. Such aesthetic elucidation shows, the root of Chinese philosophy lies in the tacit percieved-world in where body was embedded. In that sense, both Heideggerian Ekstasis/ standing forth and Mo’s standing up should be essentially a bodily standing forth. The ecstacy and recession of body, that is, the intertwined horizon, constituts the foundation of the standing-forth of subjectivity; at the same time, the Chiasm of language and the tacit world, indicated by the bodily ecstatic-recessive chiasm, also dispels the predicament of so-called Chinese philosophy’s insufficient expression.