接触与冲突:中国古典哲学与改革哲学的整体经验

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION
Ryan C. McIlhenny
{"title":"接触与冲突:中国古典哲学与改革哲学的整体经验","authors":"Ryan C. McIlhenny","doi":"10.1163/27726606-20220012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis essay offers a comparative analysis of aspects of classical Chinese philosophy with those of Reformational (Neo-Calvinist) philosophy. Such aspects form a shared root in prioritizing temporal experience (over abstract reasoning) and conceptualizing the entirety of reality as contingent and relationally dependent. At the same time, however, what marks the divergence between the two philosophies is the underlying assumptions as to what this integral reality points toward – a directionality that is critical to meaning and being. For classical Chinese philosophy, the source and meaning of reality is found within reality itself, not beyond it, construing such reality not as independent and self-contained but necessary and sufficient. This conflicts with the notion of reality as contingent and dependent. From a Reformational perspective, on the other hand, reality (i.e., all of creation) is constituted as it stands in relation to an independent and necessary Creator. The crux of Reformational philosophy is that the origin and meaning of all reality must point outside of itself to its origin in God.","PeriodicalId":41940,"journal":{"name":"Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology","volume":"113 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contact and Conflict: Integral Experience in Classical Chinese and Reformational Philosophies\",\"authors\":\"Ryan C. McIlhenny\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/27726606-20220012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis essay offers a comparative analysis of aspects of classical Chinese philosophy with those of Reformational (Neo-Calvinist) philosophy. Such aspects form a shared root in prioritizing temporal experience (over abstract reasoning) and conceptualizing the entirety of reality as contingent and relationally dependent. At the same time, however, what marks the divergence between the two philosophies is the underlying assumptions as to what this integral reality points toward – a directionality that is critical to meaning and being. For classical Chinese philosophy, the source and meaning of reality is found within reality itself, not beyond it, construing such reality not as independent and self-contained but necessary and sufficient. This conflicts with the notion of reality as contingent and dependent. From a Reformational perspective, on the other hand, reality (i.e., all of creation) is constituted as it stands in relation to an independent and necessary Creator. The crux of Reformational philosophy is that the origin and meaning of all reality must point outside of itself to its origin in God.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/27726606-20220012\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logos & Pneuma-Chinese Journal of Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27726606-20220012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文对中国古典哲学与改革宗(新加尔文主义)哲学进行了比较分析。这些方面形成了一个共同的根源,即优先考虑时间经验(而不是抽象推理),并将整个现实概念化为偶然的和相互依赖的。然而,与此同时,标志着这两种哲学之间分歧的是关于这个整体现实指向什么的潜在假设——一个对意义和存在至关重要的方向性。对中国古典哲学来说,实在的本源和意义在实在本身之内,而不是在实在之外,把实在解释为必然的和充分的,而不是独立的和自成一体的。这与现实是偶然的和依赖的概念相冲突。另一方面,从宗教改革的角度来看,现实(即所有的创造物)是根据它与一个独立和必要的创造者的关系而构成的。宗教改革哲学的关键在于,所有现实的起源和意义都必须指向自身之外的上帝。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contact and Conflict: Integral Experience in Classical Chinese and Reformational Philosophies
This essay offers a comparative analysis of aspects of classical Chinese philosophy with those of Reformational (Neo-Calvinist) philosophy. Such aspects form a shared root in prioritizing temporal experience (over abstract reasoning) and conceptualizing the entirety of reality as contingent and relationally dependent. At the same time, however, what marks the divergence between the two philosophies is the underlying assumptions as to what this integral reality points toward – a directionality that is critical to meaning and being. For classical Chinese philosophy, the source and meaning of reality is found within reality itself, not beyond it, construing such reality not as independent and self-contained but necessary and sufficient. This conflicts with the notion of reality as contingent and dependent. From a Reformational perspective, on the other hand, reality (i.e., all of creation) is constituted as it stands in relation to an independent and necessary Creator. The crux of Reformational philosophy is that the origin and meaning of all reality must point outside of itself to its origin in God.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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