论墨家对“天”的解读

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
S. Rykov
{"title":"论墨家对“天”的解读","authors":"S. Rykov","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-3-160-175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the question of the ontological status of ‘Heaven’ in Mo­hist teachings (5th–3rd centuries BC). The reconstructions of the Mohist under­standing of ‘Heaven’ (‘Heaven’ as personal deity, as natural force or community of spirits) that have been proposed in modern philosophical sinology are all based in the original source, but logically fit with each other poorly. They are an­alyzed based on the material of Mozi, ch. 4, 26–28 etc. The analysis shows both strong and controversial points of these interpretations (the question of the an­thropomorphism of ‘Heaven’: from the point of view of their philosophical op­ponents, the Mohists undeniably humanize ‘Heaven,’ but from their own point of view, it is more correct to talk about ‘heavenization’ of people; the question of ‘karmic’ nature of ‘Heaven’s actions: the Mohists often describe these actions as reactive and regular, however, the textual material allows one to conclude that they rather think within the framework of ‘legal providentialism’, i.e. when the will of a deity is an ‘administrative’ law, implemented by the ‘apparatus’ of the ‘heavenly’ government of spirits, it is not ontological law; the question of the degree of identity of ‘Heaven’ and other representatives of the spiritual world: the Mohist ‘Heaven’ can have its representatives in the spiritual world, but mostly the name ‘Heaven’ is interchangeable with the name ‘Supreme Sov­ereign’; the question of correctness of understanding ‘Heaven’ as ‘Nature’: de­spite the classical view that ‘Heaven’ in ancient Chinese philosophy is a syn­onym or personification of ‘Nature’, for Mohists this does not seem to be the case, since they do not include ‘man’ in the ‘heavenly’ realm). The conclusion is made that these reconstructions can be reconciled with each other if one accepts the pragmatically oriented nature of Mohist theology. The hypothesis is made that Mohist ‘Heaven’ is a kind of an ‘umbrella term’ that arose from the synec­docheal expansion of the meaning of a location (‘sky’) on the things that/who in­habit it or govern it (and from inside it)","PeriodicalId":46795,"journal":{"name":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Aspects of Mohist Interpretation of “Heaven”\",\"authors\":\"S. Rykov\",\"doi\":\"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-3-160-175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the question of the ontological status of ‘Heaven’ in Mo­hist teachings (5th–3rd centuries BC). The reconstructions of the Mohist under­standing of ‘Heaven’ (‘Heaven’ as personal deity, as natural force or community of spirits) that have been proposed in modern philosophical sinology are all based in the original source, but logically fit with each other poorly. They are an­alyzed based on the material of Mozi, ch. 4, 26–28 etc. The analysis shows both strong and controversial points of these interpretations (the question of the an­thropomorphism of ‘Heaven’: from the point of view of their philosophical op­ponents, the Mohists undeniably humanize ‘Heaven,’ but from their own point of view, it is more correct to talk about ‘heavenization’ of people; the question of ‘karmic’ nature of ‘Heaven’s actions: the Mohists often describe these actions as reactive and regular, however, the textual material allows one to conclude that they rather think within the framework of ‘legal providentialism’, i.e. when the will of a deity is an ‘administrative’ law, implemented by the ‘apparatus’ of the ‘heavenly’ government of spirits, it is not ontological law; the question of the degree of identity of ‘Heaven’ and other representatives of the spiritual world: the Mohist ‘Heaven’ can have its representatives in the spiritual world, but mostly the name ‘Heaven’ is interchangeable with the name ‘Supreme Sov­ereign’; the question of correctness of understanding ‘Heaven’ as ‘Nature’: de­spite the classical view that ‘Heaven’ in ancient Chinese philosophy is a syn­onym or personification of ‘Nature’, for Mohists this does not seem to be the case, since they do not include ‘man’ in the ‘heavenly’ realm). The conclusion is made that these reconstructions can be reconciled with each other if one accepts the pragmatically oriented nature of Mohist theology. The hypothesis is made that Mohist ‘Heaven’ is a kind of an ‘umbrella term’ that arose from the synec­docheal expansion of the meaning of a location (‘sky’) on the things that/who in­habit it or govern it (and from inside it)\",\"PeriodicalId\":46795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"VOPROSY FILOSOFII\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"VOPROSY FILOSOFII\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-3-160-175\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-3-160-175","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考察了“天”在莫(公元前5至3世纪)教义中的本体论地位问题。现代哲学汉学对墨家“天”(“天”是个人的神,是自然的力量或精神的共同体)地位的重建,都是在源头上提出的,但在逻辑上并不契合。它们是根据《墨子》第4章、第26-28章等的材料进行分析的。分析表明,这些解释既有力又有争议(“天”的同构问题:从他们的哲学观点来看,墨家不可否认地将“天”人性化了,但从他们自己的角度来看,谈论人的“天”化更为正确;“天的行为的“业力”性质问题:墨家经常将这些行为描述为反应性和规律性的,然而文本材料允许人们得出结论,他们更倾向于在“法律天意论”的框架内思考,即当神的意志是一种“行政”法律,由精神的“天堂”政府的“机构”实施时,它不是本体论法律;“天”与精神世界的其他代表的同一性程度问题:墨家的“天”在精神世界中可以有其代表,但“天”这个名字大多可以与“至尊”这个名字互换;将“天”理解为“自然”的正确性问题:尽管中国古代哲学中的经典观点认为“天”是“自然”之合成或人格化,但对墨家来说,情况似乎并非如此,因为他们不将“人”包括在“天”的领域中)。结论是,如果接受墨家神学的实用主义本质,这些重建是可以相互调和的。有人假设,墨家的“天”是一种“伞式术语”,它源于对一个位置(“天”)在习惯或支配它的事物(以及从它内部)上的意义的通论扩展
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Some Aspects of Mohist Interpretation of “Heaven”
This article examines the question of the ontological status of ‘Heaven’ in Mo­hist teachings (5th–3rd centuries BC). The reconstructions of the Mohist under­standing of ‘Heaven’ (‘Heaven’ as personal deity, as natural force or community of spirits) that have been proposed in modern philosophical sinology are all based in the original source, but logically fit with each other poorly. They are an­alyzed based on the material of Mozi, ch. 4, 26–28 etc. The analysis shows both strong and controversial points of these interpretations (the question of the an­thropomorphism of ‘Heaven’: from the point of view of their philosophical op­ponents, the Mohists undeniably humanize ‘Heaven,’ but from their own point of view, it is more correct to talk about ‘heavenization’ of people; the question of ‘karmic’ nature of ‘Heaven’s actions: the Mohists often describe these actions as reactive and regular, however, the textual material allows one to conclude that they rather think within the framework of ‘legal providentialism’, i.e. when the will of a deity is an ‘administrative’ law, implemented by the ‘apparatus’ of the ‘heavenly’ government of spirits, it is not ontological law; the question of the degree of identity of ‘Heaven’ and other representatives of the spiritual world: the Mohist ‘Heaven’ can have its representatives in the spiritual world, but mostly the name ‘Heaven’ is interchangeable with the name ‘Supreme Sov­ereign’; the question of correctness of understanding ‘Heaven’ as ‘Nature’: de­spite the classical view that ‘Heaven’ in ancient Chinese philosophy is a syn­onym or personification of ‘Nature’, for Mohists this does not seem to be the case, since they do not include ‘man’ in the ‘heavenly’ realm). The conclusion is made that these reconstructions can be reconciled with each other if one accepts the pragmatically oriented nature of Mohist theology. The hypothesis is made that Mohist ‘Heaven’ is a kind of an ‘umbrella term’ that arose from the synec­docheal expansion of the meaning of a location (‘sky’) on the things that/who in­habit it or govern it (and from inside it)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
VOPROSY FILOSOFII
VOPROSY FILOSOFII PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: "Вопросы философии" - академическое научное издание, центральный философский журнал в России. В настоящее время является органом Президиума Российской Академии Наук. Журнал "Вопросы философии" исторически тесно связан с Институтом философии РАН. Выходит ежемесячно. Журнал был основан в июле 1947 г. Интернет-версия журнала запущена в мае 2009 года.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信