{"title":"于连及其《绕道而行》中的方法论观点。中国和希腊的意义策略。解释学的视角","authors":"Tomasz R. Szymczyński","doi":"10.14746/pp.2022.27.4.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"François Jullien’s Detour and Access. Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece may be interpreted as an interesting example of the methodological challenge that arises around the question: to what extent does a specific strategy of meaning (stratégie du sens) taken as the subject of research influences the form and content of the results of this research? In addition, this may be viewed backward as well: to what extent a specific assumption regarding the form and content of research may affect its results? From this point of view, it is worth noting two fundamental tasks that constitute almost continuously double-intertwined obstacles in the narrative attempts of the Chinese cultural area. On the one hand, frequently observable chains of different proposals of translations of words and sentences. On the other hand, the presence of different strategies of meaning, which, in a way that is often not easy to grasp, influence the shape of “what” and “how” had been said, suggested, or maintained unexpressed at all. In this context, Jullien emphasizes the difference between “the word as definition” (la parole de définition) characteristic of the mainstream of Western culture and “the word as indication” (la parole indicielle), which the French philosopher attributes to articulations frequently occurring in the space of Chinese culture. Thus, there is a difference here within strategies that articulate meaning, which extends between what is general, and therefore abstract or abstracted, and what is holistic, and therefore constituting an inseparable unity. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with “knowing”, on the other hand, with “realizing”. This distinction underlines an extremely important challenge in the field of methodology, which should direct our attention to issues related solely to the scientific and philosophical thought devoted to human beings, and which is particularly clearly present with such attempts of interpretations at cross-cultural and multilingual insights.","PeriodicalId":52588,"journal":{"name":"Przeglad Politologiczny","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"François Jullien and the Methodological Viewpoint Presented in his Detour and Access. Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece. Hermeneutical Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Tomasz R. Szymczyński\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/pp.2022.27.4.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"François Jullien’s Detour and Access. Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece may be interpreted as an interesting example of the methodological challenge that arises around the question: to what extent does a specific strategy of meaning (stratégie du sens) taken as the subject of research influences the form and content of the results of this research? In addition, this may be viewed backward as well: to what extent a specific assumption regarding the form and content of research may affect its results? From this point of view, it is worth noting two fundamental tasks that constitute almost continuously double-intertwined obstacles in the narrative attempts of the Chinese cultural area. On the one hand, frequently observable chains of different proposals of translations of words and sentences. On the other hand, the presence of different strategies of meaning, which, in a way that is often not easy to grasp, influence the shape of “what” and “how” had been said, suggested, or maintained unexpressed at all. In this context, Jullien emphasizes the difference between “the word as definition” (la parole de définition) characteristic of the mainstream of Western culture and “the word as indication” (la parole indicielle), which the French philosopher attributes to articulations frequently occurring in the space of Chinese culture. Thus, there is a difference here within strategies that articulate meaning, which extends between what is general, and therefore abstract or abstracted, and what is holistic, and therefore constituting an inseparable unity. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with “knowing”, on the other hand, with “realizing”. This distinction underlines an extremely important challenge in the field of methodology, which should direct our attention to issues related solely to the scientific and philosophical thought devoted to human beings, and which is particularly clearly present with such attempts of interpretations at cross-cultural and multilingual insights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Przeglad Politologiczny\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Przeglad Politologiczny\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/pp.2022.27.4.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Przeglad Politologiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/pp.2022.27.4.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
弗朗索瓦·于连的《弯路与通道》。中国和希腊的意义策略可以被解释为方法论挑战的一个有趣的例子,这个挑战围绕着这样一个问题:作为研究主题的特定意义策略在多大程度上影响了本研究结果的形式和内容?此外,这也可以向后看:关于研究的形式和内容的特定假设在多大程度上可能影响其结果?从这个角度来看,值得注意的是,在中国文化区的叙事尝试中,有两个基本任务构成了几乎连续不断的双重交织的障碍。一方面,经常可以看到不同的词和句子的翻译建议链。另一方面,不同的意义策略的存在,以一种通常不容易掌握的方式,影响了“什么”和“如何”被说,建议或保持未表达的形式。在此背景下,于连强调了西方主流文化特征的“作为定义的词”(la parole de ddefinition)与法国哲学家将其归因于中国文化空间中频繁出现的表达的“作为指示的词”(la parole indicielle)之间的区别。因此,在表达意义的策略中存在差异,它延伸到一般的东西,因此是抽象的或抽象的,和整体的东西,因此构成了一个不可分割的统一。所以,一方面,我们在处理“知道”,另一方面,我们在处理“实现”。这种区别强调了方法论领域的一个极其重要的挑战,它应该引导我们把注意力集中在与人类有关的科学和哲学思想问题上,这种跨文化和多语言见解的解释尝试尤其明显地体现了这一点。
François Jullien and the Methodological Viewpoint Presented in his Detour and Access. Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece. Hermeneutical Perspective
François Jullien’s Detour and Access. Strategies of Meaning in China and Greece may be interpreted as an interesting example of the methodological challenge that arises around the question: to what extent does a specific strategy of meaning (stratégie du sens) taken as the subject of research influences the form and content of the results of this research? In addition, this may be viewed backward as well: to what extent a specific assumption regarding the form and content of research may affect its results? From this point of view, it is worth noting two fundamental tasks that constitute almost continuously double-intertwined obstacles in the narrative attempts of the Chinese cultural area. On the one hand, frequently observable chains of different proposals of translations of words and sentences. On the other hand, the presence of different strategies of meaning, which, in a way that is often not easy to grasp, influence the shape of “what” and “how” had been said, suggested, or maintained unexpressed at all. In this context, Jullien emphasizes the difference between “the word as definition” (la parole de définition) characteristic of the mainstream of Western culture and “the word as indication” (la parole indicielle), which the French philosopher attributes to articulations frequently occurring in the space of Chinese culture. Thus, there is a difference here within strategies that articulate meaning, which extends between what is general, and therefore abstract or abstracted, and what is holistic, and therefore constituting an inseparable unity. So, on the one hand, we are dealing with “knowing”, on the other hand, with “realizing”. This distinction underlines an extremely important challenge in the field of methodology, which should direct our attention to issues related solely to the scientific and philosophical thought devoted to human beings, and which is particularly clearly present with such attempts of interpretations at cross-cultural and multilingual insights.