從傅柯批判性思考看「自我指涉」問題

The problem of auto-reference: a critical thinking by Foucault

10.29650/TCUJHSS.201906_(24).0001

洪菁勵(HONG Jing-Li)

自我指涉 ； 知識型 ； 悖論 ； 外邊 ； episteme ； outside ； paradox ； self-reference (auto-reference)

慈濟大學人文社會科學學刊

24期（2019 / 06 / 01）

2 - 28

繁體中文

「去主體化」（（de）subjectification）向來是傅柯思想為人所熟知的部分，而其由此承繼而來的「反辨證法」（anti-dialectics）立場也是傅柯研究者不會陌生的。但是在這個具指標性的理論術語之下，似乎有一些細微甚至瑣碎的概念鮮少為人提及或嚴肅探討。「自我指涉」（auto-référence/self-reference）的概念可視為其中之一。稍稍熟悉傅柯的讀者應該不陌生他在《詞與物》（The Order of Things）前放了一章關於〈宮娥圖〉的精采分析，這幅畫包含著相當多的自我指涉（self-reference）的表達以及自我指涉悖論（self-reference paradox）的呈現。即便如此，我們也很少看到對於此概念的詳細探討。自我指涉向來透過古老的說謊悖論被視為一個重要哲學問題。因為它關乎知識的基礎－真值－的條件，然而這個問題較頻繁地在分析哲學及語言哲學上展開，而且也傾向於關注在悖論的處理而較不是在自我指涉的問題上，儘管兩者很難區分。本文在此意圖探討傅柯在「自我指涉」的實質問題上所關心的是「主體的抹消」而非語句的「真值」條件，並透過「自我指涉」一詞開啟傅柯思想與其他哲學領域在知識論上的對話可能性並且也希望透過傅柯考古學眼光重新定義出「自我指涉」的其他問題性。

Desubjectification and anti-dialectics, which is based on desubjectification, are Foucauldian concepts well-known to Foucault researchers. However, many of Foucault's subtle or even trivial concepts are rarely mentioned or brought up in serious discussions, in which the concept of ＂self-reference＂ (auto-référence) is one of them. Readers who are familiar with Foucault's work will be no stranger to the brilliant analysis of Las Meninas in one of the chapters in The Order of Things (Les mots et les choses: un archéologie des sciences humaines). This painting contains many self-reference expressions and paradoxes. Nevertheless, detailed discussions on self-reference remain scant. Self-reference, a problem illustrated in the classical liar paradox, is considered a crucial philosophical problem because it challenges the foundation of knowledge, i.e., truth. Discussions on this problem are more frequently made in the fields of analytic philosophy and philosophy of language; furthermore, the discussions place a greater focus on answering paradoxes rather than the problem of self-reference (despite the two problems being markedly similar). This study uses the term ＂self-reference＂ to create a possibility of opening a dialogue between Foucauldian ideas and other philosophical concepts on epistemology, and reinvestigates Foucault's views by using a less popular (but highly debatable) concept. This study serves as an innovative research. Close reading is used to clarify the relationships between Foucault and self-reference paradoxes as well as to discuss the self-reference concept in order to identify the possibility of investigating the problem of self-reference proposed by Foucault.

1. Bolander, Thomas. (2015). Self-Reference. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 ed.). Retrieved June 25, 2016 from the SEP Web: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/self-reference/
2. Bossart, Yves,區立遠（譯）(2015).如果沒有今天,明天會不會有昨天？.台北:商周.
3. Brogaard, Berit and Salerno, Joe. (2013). Fitch's Paradox of Knowability. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2013 ed.). Retrieved June 25, 2016 from the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/fitch-paradox/
4. Dean, Walter,Kurokawa, Hidenori(2014).The Paradox of the knower revisited.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic,165(1),199-244.
5. Deffert, Daniel(Ed.),Ewald, François(Ed.)(1966).Dits et Ecrits I :1954-1975.Paris:Gallimard.
6. Deleuze, Gilles,楊凱麟（譯）(2000).德勒茲論傅柯.台北:麥田.
7. Dowden, Bradley. (n.d.). Liar Paradox. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved June 25, 2016 from the IEP Web: http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/
8. Foucault, M.(2015).聲名狼藉者的生活：傅柯文選.北京:北京大學.
9. Foucault, M.,林志明（譯）(1998).古典時代瘋狂史.台北:時報.
10. Foucault, M.,洪維信（譯）(2003).外邊思維.台北:行人.
11. Foucault, M.,莫偉民（譯）(2001).詞與物 ：人文科學考古學.上海:上海三聯.
12. Foucault, M.,謝強（譯）,馬月（譯）(1998).知識考古學.上海:三聯.
13. Foucault, Michel(1994).The Order of Things : An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.NY:Random.
14. Foucault, Michel(1966).Les mots et les choses : un archéologie des sciences humaines.Paris:Gallimard.
15. Foucault, Michel(2008).Introduction à l’Anthropologie.Paris:Vrin.
16. Foucault, Michel(1969).L’archéologie du savoir.Paris:Gallimard.
17. Foucault, Michel(1972).Histoire de la folie à l’âge clqssique.Paris:Gallimard.
18. Foucault, Michel,Massumi, Brian(trans.)(1987).Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside. FOUCAULT/BLANCHOT.NY:Zone Books.
19. Hong, Howard V.(Ed.),Hong, Edna H.(Ed.)(1985).Philosophical Fragments.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
20. Irvine, Andrew David (2015). Bertrand Russell. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 ed.). Retrieved June 25, 2016 from the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/russell/
21. Irvine, Andrew David and Deutsch, Harry. (2014). Russell's Paradox. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 ed.). Retrieved July 8, 2016 from the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/russell-paradox/
22. Kirkham, Richard L.(1995).Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction.London:MIT Press.
23. Plato, Sophist, Retrieved July 6, 2016 from the Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/sophist.html
24. Russell, Bertrand. (1918). The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. In J. G. Slater (Ed.), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, 1914-19, Vol 8., London: Routledge.
25. Slater, Barry Hartley. (n.d.). Logical Paradoxes. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 25, 2016 from the IEP Web: http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-log/
26. 楊凱麟(2011).分裂分析傅柯─越界、褶曲與布置.南京:南京大學.