學科、方法與視角：有意義的比較哲學如何可能？

Discipline, Method and Perspective: Rethinking the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

鄭淑紅(Shuhong ZHENG)

比較哲學 ； 比較視角 ； 方法 ； 方法論 ； 學科 ； Comparative Philosophy ； Comparative Perspective ； Method ； Methodology ； Discipline

哲學與文化

46卷6期（2019 / 06 / 01）

155 - 168

繁體中文

比較哲學方法論問題的複雜性源於比較哲學本身的複雜性。無論是作為一種哲學方法還是一門學科，比較哲學都與比較宗教學以及跨文化翻譯密切相關。從方法論的角度來看，只有完整地展現了一個比較視角的哲學研究才能稱得上比較哲學。這就要求研究者對兩個傳統的了解程度相當，能夠在兩個話語體系、兩種價值觀念之間自如地切換。嚴肅的中西比較必然要面對一個整全的多源多流的西方傳統，而不是簡單的理所當然的以現代西方哲學這個橫斷面取代源遠流長的西方思想傳統。可以肯定的是，在放棄上世紀流行的宏大敘事風格、抛棄以東方傳統觀念比附現代西方哲學的比較模式之後，我們需要以文本尤其是經典文本為依託、以問題為中心的跨文化的哲學對話。

The complexity of the methodology of comparative philosophy arises from the dubious and complex nature of comparative study itself. Whether as a philosophical approach or a discipline, comparative philosophy is closely tied up with comparative religion and cross-cultural translation. From a methodological point of view, only when a comparative perspective is thoroughly demonstrated in a philosophical narrative can the relevant research be regarded as comparative philosophy. This requires the researchers to have acquired familiarity with the two traditions to certain extent which allows him or her to switch smoothly between the two different discourses as well as two different systems of values. A serious comparative philosophy between China and the West is bound to face the Western tradition as a whole which is multi-lineal and highly complex in historical terms, instead of simply replacing the long development of Western traditions by the modern Western philosophy. It is certain that, in abandoning the style of grand narrative as well as the comparative paradigm that was in vogue in the last century, we need to consider a new type of comparative philosophy which, as an ideal type, should be a question-focused intercultural philosophical dialogue on the one hand, and is based on solid textual studies on the other hand, in particular the analysis of the classical / scriptural texts.

1. 《斯坦福哲學百科全書》：http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/（檢索於 2019 年 2 月 9 日）。
2. Hocking, William E. Re-Thinking Missions: A Laymen's Inquiry after One Hundred Years. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1932.
3. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein(1972).Conditions for Meaningful Comparative Philosophy.Philosophy East and West,22(1),53-61.
4. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein(1973).Significance of Comparative Philosophy for the Study of Islamic Philosophy.Studies in Comparative Religion,7(4)
5. Northrop, Filmer(1979).The Meeting of East and West: An Inquiry Concerning World Understanding.New York:Macmillan.
6. Smid, Robert W.(2009).Methodologies of Comparative Philosophy: The Pragmatist and Process Traditions.New York:State University of New York Press.
7. Weber, Ralph(2014).Comparative Philosophy and the Tertium: Comparing What with What, and in What Respect?.Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy,13(2),151-171.
8. 沈清松(2008)。跨文化哲學與中國哲學。哲學基礎理論研究，1，202-220。
9. 馬克斯．韋伯,錢永祥（譯）(2010).學術與政治.桂林:廣西師範大學出版社.
10. 張志偉(2008)。跨文化的哲學對話如何可能——關於比較哲學的幾個理論問題。學術月刊，40(5)，33-39。
11. 梁漱溟(1999).東西文化及其哲學.北京:商務印書館.
12. 梅謙立,王格(2017)。超越二元，邁向統一——耶穌會士衛方濟《中國哲學》（1711 年）及其儒家詮釋學的初探。哲學與文化，44(11)，45-61。
13. 陳少明(2015).做中國哲學：一些方法論的思考.北京:三聯書店.
14. 漢斯．格奧爾格．伽達默爾,洪漢鼎（譯）(2016).詮釋學 II 真理與方法：補充和索引.北京:商務印書館.
15. 劉邦凡(2008)。論歷史分析、文化詮釋與比較哲學。世界哲學，3，90-93。
16. 劉笑敢(2006)。反向格義與中國哲學方法論反思。哲學研究，4，34-38。