{"title":"佛陀与维特根斯坦论自我的概念","authors":"Maharana, Surya Kant","doi":"10.1007/s40961-022-00270-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The notion of Self plays a significant role in the philosophical speculations of Buddha and Wittgenstein. For the Buddha, ‘Self’ has empirical validity without ultimate reality. However, the Real Self is transcendent. It is the Absolute which is immanent as well as transcendent. It cannot therefore be bound to thought-constructions. The Absolute is <i>Nirvāṇa</i>; it is peaceful, immortal and unproduced which is unspeakable and can only be realised through immediate spiritual experience. To deal with <i>Nirvāṇa</i> rigourously, Buddha upholds a negative method of describing it as final. He prefers to subscribe to the philosophy of silence, for the bliss of <i>Nirvāṇa</i> is beyond empirical reality. Some striking affinities with such Buddhist notion of Self can be found in Wittgensteinian philosophy of Self. For Wittgenstein, the ‘Self’ comes into being through one’s own world. The Self or the metaphysical subject does not belong to the world; rather it is the limit of the world. The metaphysical Self is different from the empirical Self or ego with which psychology deals. The psychological self pertains to and explains the worldly state-of-affair. Besides, the philosophical Self or I is not the human being, the human body or the human soul with psychological properties, but the boundary (not a part) of the world. Self or I is not the name of a person. It therefore is inexplicable. Since it is unspeakable, we must be silent about it, for whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wittgenstein finally submits that this is all that really matters in human life. A comparative study of the two great philosophers suggests that the Buddhist philosophy of Self apparently echoes in the Wittgensteinian philosophy of Self.</p>","PeriodicalId":41227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Buddha and Wittgenstein on the Notion of Self\",\"authors\":\"Maharana, Surya Kant\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40961-022-00270-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The notion of Self plays a significant role in the philosophical speculations of Buddha and Wittgenstein. For the Buddha, ‘Self’ has empirical validity without ultimate reality. However, the Real Self is transcendent. It is the Absolute which is immanent as well as transcendent. It cannot therefore be bound to thought-constructions. The Absolute is <i>Nirvāṇa</i>; it is peaceful, immortal and unproduced which is unspeakable and can only be realised through immediate spiritual experience. To deal with <i>Nirvāṇa</i> rigourously, Buddha upholds a negative method of describing it as final. He prefers to subscribe to the philosophy of silence, for the bliss of <i>Nirvāṇa</i> is beyond empirical reality. Some striking affinities with such Buddhist notion of Self can be found in Wittgensteinian philosophy of Self. For Wittgenstein, the ‘Self’ comes into being through one’s own world. The Self or the metaphysical subject does not belong to the world; rather it is the limit of the world. The metaphysical Self is different from the empirical Self or ego with which psychology deals. The psychological self pertains to and explains the worldly state-of-affair. Besides, the philosophical Self or I is not the human being, the human body or the human soul with psychological properties, but the boundary (not a part) of the world. Self or I is not the name of a person. It therefore is inexplicable. Since it is unspeakable, we must be silent about it, for whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wittgenstein finally submits that this is all that really matters in human life. A comparative study of the two great philosophers suggests that the Buddhist philosophy of Self apparently echoes in the Wittgensteinian philosophy of Self.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":41227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-022-00270-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-022-00270-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The notion of Self plays a significant role in the philosophical speculations of Buddha and Wittgenstein. For the Buddha, ‘Self’ has empirical validity without ultimate reality. However, the Real Self is transcendent. It is the Absolute which is immanent as well as transcendent. It cannot therefore be bound to thought-constructions. The Absolute is Nirvāṇa; it is peaceful, immortal and unproduced which is unspeakable and can only be realised through immediate spiritual experience. To deal with Nirvāṇa rigourously, Buddha upholds a negative method of describing it as final. He prefers to subscribe to the philosophy of silence, for the bliss of Nirvāṇa is beyond empirical reality. Some striking affinities with such Buddhist notion of Self can be found in Wittgensteinian philosophy of Self. For Wittgenstein, the ‘Self’ comes into being through one’s own world. The Self or the metaphysical subject does not belong to the world; rather it is the limit of the world. The metaphysical Self is different from the empirical Self or ego with which psychology deals. The psychological self pertains to and explains the worldly state-of-affair. Besides, the philosophical Self or I is not the human being, the human body or the human soul with psychological properties, but the boundary (not a part) of the world. Self or I is not the name of a person. It therefore is inexplicable. Since it is unspeakable, we must be silent about it, for whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wittgenstein finally submits that this is all that really matters in human life. A comparative study of the two great philosophers suggests that the Buddhist philosophy of Self apparently echoes in the Wittgensteinian philosophy of Self.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research encourages discussions and debates on the philosophical traditions of India and contemporary philosophy in India while simultaneously continuing its dialogue with the vast wealth of mainstream and alternative Anglo-American and Continental philosophies. Yet, the special place it reserves for philosophical expatiations emanating from the subcontinent happens to be its particular area of interest. Research and interpretations pertaining to pre-modern and modern Indian textual sources across the spectrum, viewed through an innovative lens, are highly welcome. The journal is committed to dissemination of valuable knowledge to discerning readership across the world.
JICPR uncompromisingly emphasises originality of thought and research in the varied philosophical traditions. It also welcomes interdisciplinary engagements with quintessential philosophical questions. From close examination of singular philosophical texts and philosophers through furnishing detailed annotated translations and/or re-readings of extant philosophical conundrums, the journal underscores comprehensiveness of argument and ingenuity of scholarship.