馬雷夏與朗尼根對超驗觀念的承繼與轉化

Maréchal and Lonergan's Inheritance and the Transformation of the Concepts of Transcendence

陳文祥(Wen-Hsiang Chen)

超驗方法 ； 超驗多瑪斯主義 ； 馬雷夏 ； 拉內 ； 郎尼根 ； transcendental methods ； Transcendental Thornism ； Maréchal ； Rahner ； Lonergan

哲學與文化

41卷9期（2014 / 09 / 01）

101 - 116

繁體中文

超驗多瑪斯主義作為當代新士林哲學重要學派之一，具有兼容近代主體轉向之哲學思潮與補充多瑪斯形上學傳統之優勢。一方面，其學說普遍認同康德對主體意識之研究並肯定其對先驗機能存在之論證；另一方面，其重新揭露並體認多瑪斯已深入探究但未被仔細詮釋之主體主動認識能力，並據之肯定以人的探問與暸悟能力作為超驗主體與絕對超驗者之間的中介，以構成超驗能力達到存有本身之證論。闡明這樣的理論承繼與轉化構成本文的主要目的。本文討論超驗多瑪斯主義之主要代表人物－馬雷夏與郎尼根對康德之超驗觀念與方法的融會與批判，並扣緊其側重之不同面向之研究。本文認為，馬雷夏以其「形上批判」補充康德之「超驗批判」、而郎尼根以「洞察」的觀念切入人的超驗性，以及二者共同肯定認知機能中的動態機能與「判斷」作用，作為人的存有之超驗性本質，以此突破康德之直觀主義，是二者在超驗哲學面向中對康德之超驗方法卓有貢獻之理論補足。

As an important school of contemporary neo-scholasticism, transcendental Thomism had the merit of incorporating contemporary philosophical trend of subjective turn and the supplement of Aquinas' traditional metaphysics. On the one hand, its thesis generally recognized Kant's study of subject consciousness and affirm its argument about the existence of transcendental functions; on the other hand, Thomism re-revealed and understood an subject's active cognitive power and approved man's inquisitive and comprehensive power as the medium between the transcendental subject and the absolute transcendentalist in order to construct the argument of achieving being through transcendental power. This article is mainly meant to explicate the inheritance and transformation of such a theory. It discusses the major Thomists- Maréchal and Lonergan's comprehensive and critical study about Kant's concepts and methods of transcendence, and focuses on the studies of different aspects. This article maintains that, Maréchal used his ＂metaphysical critique＂ to supplement Kant's ＂transcendental critique＂. And Lonergan used the concept of ＂insight＂ to point out the transcendental properties of men. They both affirm that the dynamic functions and the use of ＂critique＂ in the faculties of cognitivities are the transcendental essence of the being of men. In this manner they surmount Kant's intuitionism. And in the aspect of transcendental philosophy they supplement Kant's transcendental methods with a distinction.

1. Cottingham, John(1998).The Rationalists.New York:Oxford University Press.
2. Crowe, F. E.(Ed.)(1967).Collection: Papers by Bernard Lonergan.New York:Herder and Herder.
3. Gilson, Étienne、沈清松譯(2001)。中世紀哲學精神。臺北:臺灣商務印書館。
4. Hendry, Ceorege S.、武金正編譯(2004)。超驗方法：由康德到拉內。拉內的基督論及神學人觀，臺北:
5. Kant, Immanuel,Smith, Norman Kemp(Trans.)(1965).Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.New York:St. Martin's Press.
6. Kerr, Fergus(2007).Twentieth-century Catholic Theologians: From Neo-Scholasticism to Nuptial Mysticism.Malden:Blackwell Publishing.
7. Lonergan, Bernard(1957).Insight: A Study of Human Understanding.London:Longman & Todd.
8. Lonergan, Bernard(1972).Method in Theology.New York:Herder and Herder.
9. Lonergan, Bernard.,Morelli, Elizabeth(Ed.),Morelli, Mark(Ed.)(2000).Understanding and being: The Halifax Lectures on Insight.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
10. Maréchal, Joseph,Donceel, Joseph(Ed. trans.)(1970).A Maréchal Reader.New York:Herder & Herder.
11. Marmion, Declan(Ed.),Hines, Mary(Ed.)(2005).The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner.Cambrige:Cambrige University Press.
12. Meynell, Hugo A.(1998).Redirecting Philosophy: Reflections on the Nature of Knowledge from Plato to Lonergan.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
13. Muck, Otto,Seidensticker, William(Trans.)(1968).The Transcendental Method.New York:Herder & Herder.
14. Rahner, Karl,Donceel, Joseph(Trans.)(1994).Hearer of the Word.New York:The Continuum Publishing Company.
15. Sala, Giovanni,Spoerl, Joseph(Trans.)(1994).Lonergan and Kant: Five Essays on Human Knowledge.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
16. Stewart, William A.(1996).Introduction to Lonergan's Insight: An Invitation to Philosophize.New York:The Edwin Mellen Press.
17. 牟宗三譯註(1983)。康德純粹理性批判。臺北:臺灣學生書局。
18. 武金正(2000)。人與神會晤：拉內的神學人學。臺北:光啟出版社。
19. 楊祖陶編譯、郭曉芒編譯(2001)。康德純三大批判精粹。北京:人民出版社。
20. 鄔昆如、高凌霞(1996)。士林哲學。臺北:五南出版社。
21. 關永中(2002)。知識論。臺北:五南出版社。

1. 陳文祥(2016)。士林哲學實在知識論的核心論題：以《哲學與文化》為起點。哲學與文化，43(1)，73-88。
2. 陳文祥(2018)。多瑪斯主義與科學思想的同態結構：郎尼根的觀點。哲學與文化，45(1)，99-114。
3. 尤煌傑(2015)。臺灣新士林哲學界對知識理論的闡述：繼承與轉化。哲學與文化，42(7)，37-54。