|
「存在主義」 -- 開欄文
|
瀏覽5,698 ｜回應12｜推薦2 |
|
|
|
淺談「存在主義」
0. 前言
本文原標題為：《淺談「存在主義」》；發表於2005/07/19。由於最近讀到一系列介紹「存在主義」的文章，加上我現在認為它在倫理學上的理論亟待發揚；決定為此學說另闢專欄。於是將本文加註為：《「存在主義」 -- 開欄文》；略做修改並增補本節以明原委。
1. 「存在主義」簡介
我讀大學時期，「存在主義」相當流行。當時我並沒有時間和能力去探究它的說法。我對存在主義的了解，只限於「荒謬」、「存在」等名詞，和讀過《台大青年》刊登的幾篇沙特作品。出國以後，逐漸讀了幾本海德格、沙特的哲學著作、卡木的文學作品和哲學論述、以及一些介紹「存在主義」的書籍。祈克果的書我也看了幾本，但我無法領會其意旨。
所有學說都有至少三種不同層次的內容：
a. 原始論述
b 衍生詮釋
c. 通俗了解
第三項指：一般人依各自的背景或思路，在原始論述或衍生詮釋中，取得、了解、或解讀各自所需，或引起各人共鳴的一部分印象或說法。
有時還有第四個層次：「商業呈現」。那就離題更遠了。
對一般人來說，要了解「存在主義」，可以先從以下兩個問題切入：
1) 「存在」的概念，即「存在」兩字是什麼意思？
2) 「存在主義」要解決或回答的議題是什麼？
2. 解讀「存在主義」
2.1 「存在」的概念
「存在」的概念不是指「在」或「不在」，「有」或「沒有」。它指的是：
a. 「人存在的條件」(或「人存在的狀況」)；和
b. 「人存在的方式」。
2.2 「存在主義」考慮的關鍵議題
a. 「什麼是人存在的條件(狀況)」？
b. 「人應該如何存在」？由上一個問題的答案衍生而來。)
「荒謬」是大多數(無神論)存在主義哲學家對第一個問題(2.2a)的「速答」。我認為它所描述的「條件」(「狀況」)，相當於佛家的「諸行無常」加上「一切皆苦」。也許我的敏感度不高，不論是「荒謬」或「一切皆苦」，我都「感覺不到」。
我對「存在主義」的興趣，主要在沙特和卡木對「(人應該)如何存在？」所提出的論述。
上面提到，我看沙特的文學作品不多，而且遠在大學時代，現在已沒有什麼印象。《存在與虛無》一書太厚，我只看過一些解釋比較通俗概念的章節或段落。我對沙特的片斷了解，可用以下幾句話表示：
1) 人是他/她的所做所為；
2) 不做選擇也是一種選擇；(不做決定也是一種決定)；
3) 人是自由的，所以一個人必須對自己的行為負責(面對自己行為的後果)；
4) 他對「心口不一」的分析(或「言行不一」，”bad faith”)。
卡木的文學作品中，對我影響最深的是《沉淪》(The Fall)，此書內容在呈現以上所說的前三點。《異鄉人》(The Stranger)當然是「荒謬文學」的經典之作。
3. 「存在主義」隨想
3.1 上面說到，「存在主義」討論人的「存在條件」和「存在方式」兩個問題。所以它的淵源始自人類開始思想之時。只要牽涉倫理學的討論，包括宗教思想，必然涉及第2節所提出的兩個「存在主義」要回答的問題(2.2a和2.2b)。只是在近代之前，一般人在思想上比較以「群體」和「權威」掛帥，很少有學者從「個人」的角度來深入思考它們而已。祈克果的貢獻在此；用庫恩的術語來說，這是一種「思考模式移轉」(或譯「典範移轉」)。
3.2 文學表現或描述人生。因此，所有近代、現代、和當代稱得上大文學家的人，沒有一個在其作品中，不涉及3.1節中的兩個「存在」問題。(他/她們未必是「存在主義」者。)
3.3 當代歐陸哲學家中，除了分析學派哲學家外，也很少有人不討論以上兩個「存在」問題。尤其所謂「『後現代』主義」思想家，大概沒有人不受尼采或海德格的影響。因此，他/她們雖然不像沙特、卡木以「存在」這個概念掛帥，但他/她們或多或少都是「存在主義」思想家。就像現在沒有人講柏拉圖主義、亞力斯多德主義、笛卡爾主義、或康德主義，但每一個哲學家的思想中，或贊成或反對，都包含這四個人的思想淵源。
3.4 近代「存在主義」的開山祖師祈克果是虔誠的基督徒。也許我們可以說奧古斯丁是第一個「基督教教義存在主義者」。當代「存在主義」有「基督教教義」和「無神論」兩大流派。前者如馬里當、馬守；後者以沙特、卡木為代表。後面兩位不但年輕時是抵抗德國地下組織的成員，他們一生都是社運參與者和社會公義的維護者。
* 原文將雅士培列入「基督教教義存在主義者」；現刪去。
本文原載：【中時電子報】>> 【新聞對談】>> 《談基督神學與中西文化》(該網頁已不復存在)
開欄者：醉洛陽
發表時間：2005/07/19前後
本文於 修改第 6 次
|
|
我看斯多噶學派與存在主義
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
0. 前言
就我讀過三、五本相關書籍的領悟來說，我跟基德先生對兩家思想的了解(請見本欄上一篇)，頗有一些差別。但是，我同意他認為：「兩派理論並不衝突」這個看法。不過，我們兩人做此相同判斷的理由，卻正是基於上述不同的了解。我們兩人的理由都在於：兩個學派有各自適用的場域；但是，我給它們兩者所定位的「場域」，和基德先生對兩家適用「場域」的定位，似乎恰恰相反。
我是工程師出身；不是哲學家，更不是「存在主義」或「斯多噶學派」的專業研究者。從而，我對兩家思想的了解只能說是「瞎子摸象」所得。下面略表淺見；有請看官們指正。
1. 斯多噶學派
1.1 緣起
我第一次接觸到斯多噶學派的思想，是初三畢業那年讀到奧瑞尼亞斯的《沉思錄》。在此之前我對該學派思想一無所知；該學派名稱頂多也只看過三、五次。該書是家父交代要讀的；自有他老人家的深意。由於當時沒什麼見識，可塑性還蠻大。回想起來，我成為一個(政治上的)「現實主義」者，跟這本書多少有些關係。
之後，雖然我不時會涉獵一些哲學著作，但對此學派並沒有進一步了解。最近才在《傳媒》上重新接識此派大哲們的片段思想 -- 塞內卡(該欄2025/07/01)、愛皮克悌塔斯(該欄2025/06/26)、和奧瑞尼亞斯(該欄2025/06/29)。
1.2 我的解讀
40歲前後，我有一段時間讀了幾本佛經和介紹佛學思想的書；看到「對鏡無心，八風不動」這句話時，不禁想起少年時期《沉思錄》給我的啟發。佛家這兩句話跟儒家的「君子求諸己」沒什麼直接關係(該卷第21)；但是，它跟斯多噶學派的思想則有相通之處。
如果我以上的了解與斯多噶學派的主流詮釋相近，則此派哲學的意旨在於：「修心養性」；而不在與其他人「爭一日之短長」。這跟基德先生對此學派的解讀：「斯多噶學派為鬥士守則」(1)，自不可以道里計。
2. 存在主義
2.1 緣起
我接觸到「存在主義」是進了台大以後；先後在《台大青年》和《現代文學》上看到介紹沙垂、卡木的文章以及他們兩位作品的翻譯。這也是我知道張系國兄大名之始。那時只是把它們當文學作品看待；隱隱約約地感到其中的故事跟主角做的「決定」有關。
1973以後工作和生活比較穩定；直到我1985成家前，看書、逛書店、逛舊書攤、和到圖書館是我主要娛樂之一。雖然當時大學課堂上「存在主義」不再是「顯學」，但在我看的書本中，此派學說還是經常被引用。因此，它也就成為我試圖了解的一個思潮。由於我並不專攻哲學，我的了解大概不過是浮光掠影、道聽塗說之類(2)。我主要的閱讀興趣在倫理學；從而，我對它的理解也就偏重於這一方面(該欄2026/05/17)。
2.2 我的解讀
本欄開欄文和2005/07/23貼文概括了我所理解的「存在主義」；和本文相關的重點，可以歸納於下：
1) 人的「所做所為」就是她/他之所以為「人」；
2) 人是「自由」的；她/他必須對自己的行為負責，以及面對自己「所做所為」的「後果」。
這兩個主張和本文論點直接相關：一個人的「所做所為」和它們的「後果」(請參見這篇拙作，該欄2026/05/06)。
如果我以上的詮釋可以接受，則存在主義的精髓不在「修心養性」，而在「為人處世」。不只如此，它還是一個正面的、積極的、主動的心態、立場、和方式。
這和基德先生詮釋存在主義時，他所強調的「本真」有段距離。我對這個概念本身還真有些意見，但這不是本文主題；留待專文處理。
3. 結論
1) 斯多噶學派的意旨在「修心養性」。
2) 存在主義的精髓在「為人處世」。
3) 借用中國儒學的術語：前者應用在「內聖」；後者應用在「外王」。
附註：
1. 該文第1 節：“Stoicism is the discipline of the fighter.”
2. 請見本欄2005/07/23貼文「對話5」所列書目。
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
斯多噶學派與存在主義 – Lior Gd
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
** 下文在2026/05/09置於「哲學」欄。因為增開了這個「存在主義」專欄，所以把它改置此處。造成不便，敬請見諒。
過幾天我會談談愚見。為了指涉方便，替原文各節加上序號，以及增設第0節的子標題「前言」。
The Warrior and the Artist: A Unified Theory of Stoicism and Existentialism
Stop choosing between control and authenticity. You need one to protect the other. Here is the blueprint for a sovereign soul
Lior Gd, 02/02/26
0. 前言
In the marketplace of modern philosophy, we are often sold a false choice.
On one shelf, there is Stoicism. It’s marketed as the philosophy of the stiff upper lip, the icy stare, and the suppression of emotion. It’s for people who want to be unbreakable robots.
On the other shelf, there is Existentialism. It’s marketed as the philosophy of angst, rebellion, and loud self-expression at all costs. It’s for people who want to burn brightly and damn the consequences.
We are told these two are enemies. One demands you shut up and take it; the other demands you scream and reject it.
But this is a shallow reading. It misses the mechanical core of both philosophies. If you look deeper, past the clichés, you realize they are not contradictions. They are two necessary layers of a complete human operating system.
They are the Warrior and the Artist living within the same skin. And if you want to survive the modern world without losing your soul, you need both.
1. Layer 1: Stoicism is the “How” (The Art of War)
The biggest mistake people make about Stoicism is thinking it’s a doctrine of silence. It is not. It is a doctrine of strategy.
The ancient Stoics didn’t want you to be passive; they wanted you to be precise. They viewed life through a lens similar to Eastern martial arts or modern Game Theory. In judo, you don’t flail around wasting energy on anger or fear; you “keep the force to yourself.” You conserve your energy until the exact moment you need to strike or redirect.
Stoicism is the discipline of the fighter. It teaches that every behavior — not just speaking, but haste, flattery, anger, and impulsive withdrawal — must be measured.
* To speak without thinking is to misfire.
* To react to an insult is to hand your opponent leverage.
In this view, silence is not passivity. Silence is often an aggressive, strategic act of war designed to maintain your dignity and control the board. A Stoic can act with surprising speed when necessary, but that speed comes from a place of stillness, not panic.
Stoicism is the walls of your fortress. It is how you establish sovereignty over your own mind so that the outside world cannot overrun you.
2. Layer 2: Existentialism is the “Why” (The Heart)
But a fortress is useless if it’s empty.
If Stoicism is the discipline of the warrior, Existentialism is the cause they are fighting for. It is the “Heart.”
While the Stoic is concerned with how to survive the game, the Existentialist is concerned with why you are playing at all. Existentialism is the refusal to be an NPC (Non-Player Character) in society’s ridiculous script. It is the demand to preserve your unique “name,” your genuine thought, and your authentic path against the crushing pressure to conform.
The Existentialist knows that if you surrender your uniqueness to play it safe, you have already lost. You must manifest your genuine self, even if you are a minority of one. This isn’t just good for you; it’s necessary for the world. Society needs pluralism to evolve. It needs your specific signal amidst the noise.
Existentialism is the flag flying over your fortress. It is the undeniable declaration that you exist here.
3. The Hierarchy: The Cup and The Wine
So, how do they work together?
We often confuse the container with the contents.
Think of Stoicism as the cup — solid, structured, unbreakable. Think of Existentialism as the wine — vibrant, flavorful, alive.
If you have the wine without the cup (Existentialism without control), it spills all over the floor. You are a mess of raw emotion that gets easily crushed by the world.
* If you have the cup without the wine (Stoicism without authenticity), you are just an empty vessel. Secure, safe, but hollow.
We don’t want the cup for its own sake; we want the cup so we can drink the wine.
This is the ultimate hierarchy: Stoicism is the servant of Existentialism.
Stoicism is the bodyguard; Existentialism is the VIP. The bodyguard uses martial arts, strategy, and silence to clear a path. Why? So the VIP can walk through safely and do what only they can do.
You must use Stoic discipline to secure your territory, manage your reactions, and handle the “game” of society. But you do this only to buy the safety and space required for your genuine self — your Existential heart — to live actually.
Be a warrior in your methods so you can be an artist in your life.
Written by Lior Gd
I apply sociology and continental philosophy — Bourdieu, Goffman, Byung-Chul Han — to the hidden structures of tech work, AI, and human connection.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
介紹一本「存在主義」入門書 - Laura Westford
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
** 下文介於書評和簡介之間。由於提到「現象學」和「存在主義」思潮兩者間的關係，在2026/03/31置於「哲學」欄。因為增開了這個「存在主義」專欄，所以把它改置此處。造成不便，敬請見諒。
請參考：
* At the Existentialist Café
* Review: In Sarah Bakewell’s ‘At the Existentialist Café,’ Nothingness Has a Certain Something
An Essay on Existentialism
Creating and observing the experience itself
Laura Westford, 03/19/26
Existentialism is an area of philosophy that a lot of people of my generation are going to have at least a passing familiarity with. In an era full of Nietzsche memes and internet pages posting quotes from Nietzsche or Heidegger that they haven’t read, it would be hard not to have at least heard of the term existentialism.
Despite this apparent bastardisation of existentialism as a philosophy, however, there have been considerable efforts undertaken in order to try and improve our understanding of the topic at hand. Sartre himself made this effort in his lecture (which has since been turned into a book), Existentialism is a Humanism, and in more modern times, we’ve seen books such as At the Existentialist Café become rather popular.
At the Existentialist Café is a book by Sarah Bakewell which explores the philosophy of existentialism, primarily as set out by Sartre and his longtime partner, Simone de Beauvoir. Her book also explains the philosophies of people such as Edmund Husserl, as well as talking about Martin Heidegger and his own thought. On top of this, she also covers the lives of the aforementioned thinkers as well as several others, including Karl Jaspers.
I’ve had the book for some time now, and decided to get around to reading it because I wanted to get it off my reading list at last. Having now finished the book, I have to say that it was a pleasant surprise and I really enjoyed reading it. A few years ago, I really got into the likes of Sartre and his existentialism, and I had a real affinity for his arguments about meaning and freedom. Reading Bakewell’s book ignited a lot of that interest in me again.
The full title of the book, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, & Apricot Cocktails, makes sense once you get past the early stages of the book, where Bakewell references a particular point that was apparently made by Sartre and de Beauvoir’s friend, Raymond Aron, who had once remarked that you can make philosophy out of apricot cocktails.
Bakewell actually uses this point to segue into a discussion about a similar point that was made by Edmund Husserl in his lectures on phenomenology. Husserl would discuss the nature of a cup of coffee with his students and talk about the ways in which we can analyse its nature. Sure, we can, on the one hand, talk about the chemical composition of the cup of coffee and how this relates to how we would define it, or even talk about how coffee beans themselves are grown and manufactured into the drink so many of us love. At the end of the day, however, these factors aren’t necessarily relevant when it comes to how we experience drinking coffee.
At the same time, Husserl would point out how if we were to analyse coffee in purely subjective or sentimental ways, we would still arrive at many of the same problems. Husserl took the perspective that we should look at coffee as a coffee drinker and experience it as ourselves. In other words, when we drink a cup of coffee, we notice that there is a strong aroma, a somewhat bitter taste, the warmth of the flavour, and even the weight of the coffee in the cup as we lift it to drink. All of these things (and many others) are important in terms of how we experience coffee as a phenomenon.
You can no doubt see that even something as simple as drinking coffee can be thought of in a philosophical manner, and this is one of the most interesting things about how Husserl’s philosophy of phenomenology is discussed in Bakewell’s book. She makes reference to this line of thought at numerous points, referring to it as a kind of show, don’t tell philosophy, and it actually reminds me of a point I saw in an interview with film director Christopher Nolan.
Nolan once was shown an internet post from someone who said, “My life is like a Christopher Nolan movie, I don’t understand what’s going on”, and his response was simply to say, “Don’t try to understand it, just feel it”. Such a point is very simple, but it’s also incredibly powerful. Oftentimes, we have a tendency to try to examine or understand things in very concrete, definite ways, but this is not really how we experience life much of the time, and it’s probably not the best way to try to go about doing so. Instead, there is a point to be made about how we should simply experience and feel things, a point made by Husserl and Nolan.
Analyses and perspectives such as these of experience and freedom are foundational to arguments made by existentialist thinkers throughout history. One very notable example, and one covered briefly by Bakewell in her book, is Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was very well known for exploring concepts such as anxiety, which is so fundamental to the human experience, and in particular, how this relates to theology and God.
An example of this, which I always find very apt, is when you’re a child, and you go to a sweet/candy shop. You are met with an array of possibilities for what you want, and this sheer absurd number of possibilities creates a paralysis that actually hinders our ability to choose. Kierkegaard referred to this anxiety as “the dizziness of freedom” in his masterwork, The Concept of Anxiety, which happens to be my favourite book of Kierkegaard’s and one of my favourite books in general.
The core theme expressed by Kierkegaard of this dizzying and overwhelming freedom that is thrust upon us is something that would go on to become very influential for later existentialist thinkers such as Sartre and de Beauvoir. Even in Sartre’s lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism, he would talk about how humans are born into this world as effectively nothing, and this freedom affords us an array of possibilities in terms of the choices we can make throughout our lives.
One of Sartre’s greatest quotes/ideas, and one which is examined in Bakewell’s book, is his idea that “existence precedes essence.” Despite apparently daunting language, this concept is very simple to understand in that it means, for people, we are not defined from the moment we are born, and this process of establishing ourselves and finding meaning is something we take up throughout our lives.
If you look at aspects of your life that define who you are or from which you are able to derive meaning, these are very rarely inherent characteristics or aspects of yourself. Just from my own life, I greatly enjoy reading, and I also enjoy writing little pieces and essays here. These are things I basically stumbled upon, for lack of a better term, and were things I had to come to throughout my life. They were not inherent things that I was born into, nor do they represent an inherent part of my makeup or experience. In other words, I was not born to be someone who enjoys reading and writing; this enjoyment and the meaning I find from these activities were something that came after I was born.
Much of Bakewell’s attention in this book is given to explaining the conditions that people were facing in the mid 20th century and how this led to an explosion in existentialism around this time. We had just seen World War 2 and the horrors it had unleashed across the world. France had been a major area where there was considerable conflict and destruction across major cities. So much destruction was wrought upon the country, and it created a real crisis for many people, including the philosophers discussed by Bakewell.
Amongst all of this, and indeed throughout the whole book, Bakewell goes into great detail with regard to the lives of the people she discusses. She goes into really interesting depth about Martin Heidegger and his life, especially explaining his support for the Nazi regime and how this made so many people who were former friends distance themselves from him.
One such example was the philosopher Hanna Arendt, who gained considerable attention for her work on Adolf Eichmann and her concept of the banality of evil, referring to how Eichmann and so many other Nazi officials displayed a calm, matter-of-fact attitude when discussing the atrocities they were a part of.
Heidegger’s Nazi past was something that was incredibly well-known, even when he was alive; it was something that former associates of his knew about. Bakewell talks about this in depth, and rather importantly, she notes how it was something he never really seemed to take much accountability for. Such problems as these have caused many people to view Heidegger with a strong degree of criticism, as support for the Nazi regime is surely going to lead people to question how a thinker could support such evil.
The existentialist thinkers discussed in the book all had very grand, and at times, very troubled lives. Sartre and de Beauvoir are both discussed as having various problems throughout their lives, Sartre having a myriad of health problems throughout his life, as well as troubles in the development of his own philosophy. Sartre was, obviously, one of the forerunners of 20th-century existentialism, but he was also a Marxist. Bakewell argues that Sartre’s positions were completely irreconcilable and that this support for contrary philosophies of existentialism and Marxism represented a major stumbling block for Sartre and his work.
Even in the case of Simone de Beauvoir, she is someone who was not spared the struggles of life either. She faced struggles throughout her life as a woman, and obviously, in the case of her and Sartre, they struggled deeply during the Second World War, even being separated for a time. Her writing of her masterpiece, The Second Sex, proved to be momentous, especially considering how impactful the book would go on to be.
I found these sections going into the lives of the thinkers discussed in this book to be really interesting, especially when discussing the broader political views of those discussed. Albert Camus, who also gets discussed at length in the book, took rather different political and moral views from Sartre, and eventually their friendship waned as time went on.
All in all, I think At the Existentialist Café is a really good introduction to existentialist ideas. Bakewell presents the philosophies of phenomenology and existentialism in a really digestible way that will no doubt resonate with people who aren’t of a particularly philosophical mind. Everything is presented super clearly; it’s not super dense and hard to understand like when you’re reading Hegel. This would be a really great book for someone who wants to get into existentialism or philosophy, as it’s written in such a way that anyone can find it easy to understand.
Overall, I definitely think that this is one of the best works of philosophy I’ve ever read, even if it is simply presenting the ideas and lives of different philosophers of existentialism and phenomenology. Definitely one of the best books I’ve read so far this year, and it’s inspired me to go back and read some of the people mentioned throughout. That definitely has to count for something.
Written by Laura Westford
Writer covering topics such as politics, culture, and philosophy
Published in Philosophy Today
Philosophy Today is dedicated to current philosophy, logic, and thought.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
存在主義隨筆：選擇、人生、存在
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
0. 前言
本文三個隨筆原載於：【中時電子報】>> 【新聞對談】>> 《人民？人民？》。它們是我跟該欄開欄者慕陶先生就相關議題的「對談」；三者依當時發表順序排列於下。由於沒有註明日期，確定的時間點現在已不可考；大概在2010前後。
以下各節的子標題沿用當初發表時各「對談」的標題；對談往往是即時回應，沒有經過嚴謹思考。此處的文字和標點符號略有修改，以求「文從字順」。 -- 2026/05/14
1. 選擇、決定、和賭注
我相信「存在主義」討論問題中之一是︰人何以必須做「選擇」或「決定」。
如果我沒有記錯，沙特的名言之一是︰
「不做選擇也是一種選擇，不做決定也是一種決定「。
用「下賭注」來「詮釋」存在主義哲學家所討論的「選擇」或「決定」，我想可能和沙特(以及其他存在主義哲學家如卡木)的意旨有些距離。至於是或不是「悲劇」，則要看每個人的人生觀、她/他對「自由」的評價、和她/他對人「存在性」的了解或「詮釋」來決定。
2. 選擇、人生、和存在主義
「選擇」或「決定」有兩種：
1) 個人偏好或性向的選擇，如衣著、飲食、男女、藝術表現形式等等；
2) 攸關公眾(當然也包含個人)利益的選擇，如政黨、領導人、教育制度、教材內容、公共政策等等。
對於一個理性的人來說，攸關公眾利益的「選擇」或「決定」，通常要經過「決策過程」。此處的「理性」指：一個人使用自己(和他人)「經驗」的「意願」和「能力」。在這個意義下，所謂「決策過程」指的是：
a. 比較過去經驗的結果；
b. 比較這些結果和當下目標的相關性；
c. 根據以上這兩個比對來做最適當「選擇」或「決定」的程序。
這裏的「經驗」當然包括由綜合生活經驗而提鍊出來的知識和學問。所以，一個「選擇」是否「錯誤」，往往不需要等到事後才發現。有知識或有經驗的人，通常能做出睿智(= 有效或有利)的決定。「不聽老人言，吃虧在眼前。」就在表達這個經驗之談。
人類有文化、有知識、有技術等等，或抽象的說 -- 「有進步」，都是人類不斷運用「(工具)理性」的結果。「有進步」一詞在此處自然帶有「價值判斷」的色彩。
庫恩、極端詮釋學派、和某些後現代主義者的謬誤、虛妄、和思考盲點，就在於她/他們誤以為：所有的選擇並沒有現實根據或經驗基礎；它們都只是一種下賭注或類似下賭注的行為。不過，她/他們的盲點在於不了解：
自然界，以及在一定範圍內和一定程度下的社會行為，具有「常態性」和/或「人際相通性」。兩者在此都是構成「客觀」這個概念的基礎。
這是因為：自然和社會活動都根據某些「規則」。
研究學問的目的就在找出這些「規則」，或找出一個最能表達這些「規則」的詮釋。由於具有「常態性」和/或「人際相通性」，這些「規則」不只是由某些人的決定、詮釋、或想像而來。也就是說，它們不取決於所謂的「思考模式」。換句話說，我們的「詮釋」不是「規則」本身，而是呈現這個「規則」的方式。這一點當然是延續了康德的主張。
「選擇」或「決定」預設事物或事態的「多元性」，以及選擇者具有某種程度的「自由」。「多元性」是個現實；「自由」則是一個意識型態。我認為人沒有絕對或無限的「自由」；我所了解的「自由」指：
在一定範圍內和一定程度下，人有「一個」以上的可選項。
人生之所以有「意義」，就在於我們可以根據個人的努力，擴大受限的範圍；提高受限的程度；和增加「可選項」的數目。用尼采的話來說，就是「發揮自己的潛力」(通譯「權力意志」)。
因此，「能選擇」和「必須選擇」兩者就是「人生」或「『人生』的『意義』」。
如果我對沙特(尤其是卡木)著作的詮釋符合他們寫作的意旨，這也是他們兩人所代「存在主義」流派的主張。
3. 人需要「存在」的理由嗎?
「人類存在沒有任何的理由，人只是被拋棄在這世上。」
這只是海德格的詮釋。依我的詮釋，一個人之「所以存在」是因為：
曾經有一男一女想炒飯或打砲的附帶結果。
在我看來，「爽一下」這個理由跟海德格想得出的任何說法或詮釋一樣有理或無理。
人既然已經來到這個世界，討論「存在」到底「有理由」、「沒理由」、或「什麼理由」等等，都只不過是種文字遊戲。真正的「遊戲」是「繼續存在下去」。相對而言，給自己「創造『存在理由』」可能比「詮釋『存在理由』」要更好玩，更有刺激性。
這當然也只不過是我的詮釋。
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
|
我在開欄文的第3.1節中説： 上面說到，「存在主義」討論人的「存在條件」和「存在方式」兩個問題。所以它的淵源始自人類開始思想之時。只要牽涉倫理學的討論，包括宗教思想，必然涉及第2節所提出的兩個「存在主義」要回答的問題(2.2a和2.2b)。 因此，我不認為： 「兩者所談的東西大大地不同。」 是一個合於佛教和存在主義兩者思想的陳述。它們提出的答案和/或對策的確「大大地不同」，但是它們思考的起點或試圖回答的問題(人的「存在條件」和「存在方式」)是相近的。從而，對兩者做一個「比較」，是對所讀和所學進行思考者的通行模式。
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
|
|
我對"老先生"的稱呼沒有意見 我馬上就要享受老人年金和半價車票(滿65足歲) 本來就是個老先生 我知道我的網頁被封鎖 抱歉 但很多文章(過長的除外)可在此搜尋到
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
要用代理/我所谓的人性
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
先問一下，市長對“老先生”這個稱呼會不會反感，如果反感的話，我就改個稱呼。 先生很多文章在http://www.fokas.com.tw/上，可是大陸這邊好像訪問不了該網站，只好用代理，用代理連接上了也有“網頁錯誤”。 **********************分割線*************************** 對於人性，我也沒什麽高見啦，而且我是個很懶的人，很難專心并堅持看大部頭的經典。所以才到這些論壇來吸取前輩的精華。 我所謂的人性其實就是指人行動思考的根本動機。在沒有讀經典著作前，也就只好根據所見推論罷了。
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
|
我對自己不懂和不熟悉的領域，一向盡量避免評論。有時和他人對談，偶而在禮貌上不得不回應自己一知半解的話題。 佛學和存在主義的論述都很廣泛，前者並不是我閱讀興趣所在。我也只對後者在倫理學部分的論述有興趣。自然不會對兩者同時妄加月旦。 在這裏所轉貼的短文中，我看不出那一段或那一句有將兩者掛勾的嫌疑。「比較」是研究的基本方法之一。如果人生的確「諸行無常」和「一切皆苦」，而我們還選擇活下去，在我看來，「荒謬」是一個適當的形容詞。唯一說得上「掛勾」的地方，是我對兩者在這一部分的觀點都不同意。但我也不喜歡臭豆腐，這不表示我將佛學、臭豆腐、和存在主義三者「掛勾」。 不過，我讀過一些唯識論的經典。主要是我當初希望增加自己對認識論的基本知識，因而花了些時間去瀏覽不同學派的觀點。當然，我後來才了解，唯識學的主旨並不是認識論。我把自己的閱讀經驗寫成一篇短文。此外，我也有一篇短文討論「應無所住，而生其心。」這句話。歡迎賜教。 *《淺談唯識論》， http://www.fokas.com.tw/news/newslist.php?id=96 *《「應無所住而生其心」討論 3 》， http://www.fokas.com.tw/news/newslist.php?id=199
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
|
|
若是腦蟲的話，不會把存在主義與佛教掛勾，因為兩者所談的東西大大地不同，又或者說，切入的角度差很多 如果胡市長想要理解什麼是佛教，這方面的思想史著作在台灣也是有的，如果能理解原來印度古代的發源狀況（種姓制度 婆羅門與釋帝利的鬥爭 不同民族與「國家」的鬥爭 上座與大眾對佛說的詮釋差異 說一切有部 犢子部 譬喻師與經部等等），對於理解後來佛學的流變會很有幫助，不至於太過離譜地誤讀這個世界性的宗教 牟宗三先生說，「儒家是縱貫縱講；佛家道家是縱貫橫講」 腦蟲認為這個比方是可以接受的；但是究其極，仍然是探討「性命天道」的秘密，這一點上三教之間是無差別的
|
|
|
|
「在研究人性方面，還有什麽經典論述麼？」 我對「人性」是什麽這個問題的興趣不大。因此，我不熟悉這方面的著作。 我基本上把人看成是個群居或具有社會性的生物。我認為，人在一般生物需求的驅動下進行各種活動之外，也受文化、法律、和社會規範(= 道德)的指導和制約。 我對「人行動的『動機』或『動力』是什麽？」比對「『人性』是什麽？」的興趣大。我們可以觀察人的行為來推論人為什麼會做這種或那種行動。這類問題是歷史學、心理學、社會學、社會心理學、文化人類學、和大腦神經學等等的研究對象。 我會建議你從任何一本心理學和社會學的入門書著手。再涉獵一些大腦神經學方面的入門書。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
回應給：
