品鉴中国式差异——安乐哲访谈录（英文）
|
摘要
在接受刘耘华、倪琳娜两位学者的访谈过程中,安乐哲援引了中国哲学经典中的几个范例来论证以下观点:应当充分运用我们的想象力来帮助古老的传统用自己的声音、以自己的方式说话。安乐哲表示,要想深入品鉴中国语境所孕育出的各种差异,必须解决两个重要问题。从西方视角来讲,我们在理解中国哲学时一直沿用的是西方传教士所创造的语词体系,从而造成中国哲学在世界哲学之林中被边缘化,甚至沦为一种所谓的"东方宗教思想"。而从当代中国视角出发,我们理应意识到,我们事实上正在使用诞生于19世纪下半叶的西方哲学术语之汉译本,来促成汉语和西方现代性的融合。无视此种对西方现代性的挪用,只会导致我们深陷中国式"先验说""普救论"等令人遗憾的假说泥沼,而无法正确地将儒家真义理解为对人文价值的普及。讽刺的是,后达尔文主义对西方哲学叙事进行内在批判时针对先验说和普救论所提出的尖锐主张一直被当作一种谬论而遭到普遍抵制。
In an interview with LIU Yunhua and NI Linna, Roger Ames uses several examples from the Chinese philosophical canons to argue that we must strive with imagination to allow this ancient tradition to speak with its own voice, and on its own terms. There are two major problems in fully appreciating the Chinese difference, insists Ames. From a Western perspective, we are using a vocabulary inherited from the missionaries to understand Chinese philosophy, reducing it from its own status as an important contribution to world philosophy to a marginal Eastern religion. From a contemporary Chinese perspective, we must be aware that we are using the Chinese translation of Western philosophical terms invented in the second half of the nineteenth century to synchronize the Chinese language with Western modernity. A failure to be cognizant of this appropriation of Western modernity leads to a confusion between untoward claims about Chinese "transcendentalism" and "universalism" and the appropriate understanding of Confucianism as offering us common human values. The irony is that within the post-Darwinian internal critique of the Western philosophical narrative, its own strident claims about transcendentalism and universalism have been rejected broadly as a mode of fallacious thinking.
In an interview with LIU Yunhua and NI Linna, Roger Ames uses several examples from the Chinese philosophical canons to argue that we must strive with imagination to allow this ancient tradition to speak with its own voice, and on its own terms. There are two major problems in fully appreciating the Chinese difference, insists Ames. From a Western perspective, we are using a vocabulary inherited from the missionaries to understand Chinese philosophy, reducing it from its own status as an important contribution to world philosophy to a marginal Eastern religion. From a contemporary Chinese perspective, we must be aware that we are using the Chinese translation of Western philosophical terms invented in the second half of the nineteenth century to synchronize the Chinese language with Western modernity. A failure to be cognizant of this appropriation of Western modernity leads to a confusion between untoward claims about Chinese "transcendentalism" and "universalism" and the appropriate understanding of Confucianism as offering us common human values. The irony is that within the post-Darwinian internal critique of the Western philosophical narrative, its own strident claims about transcendentalism and universalism have been rejected broadly as a mode of fallacious thinking.
引文