论老斯光“自我三分法”在解读克尔凯郭尔中的局限性

IF 0.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY
Andrew Ka-Pok-Tam
{"title":"论老斯光“自我三分法”在解读克尔凯郭尔中的局限性","authors":"Andrew Ka-Pok-Tam","doi":"10.1515/kierke-2021-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1959, Lao Sze-Kwang (1927 – 2012), a well-known Chinese Kantian philosopher and author of the New Edition of the History of Chinese Philosophy, published On Existentialist Philosophy introducing existential philosophers to Chinese readers. This paper argues that Lao misinterpreted Kierkegaard’s ultimate philosophical quest of “how to become a Christian” as a question of ‘virtue completion,’ because he failed to recognize and acknowledge Kierkegaard’s distinction between aesthetic, moral and religious passion. By describing and clarifying Lao’s misinterpretation, the paper then argues that Lao’s trichotomy of the self fails to give due credit to the independence of religiousness from morality and aesthetics in Kierkegaard’s thought.","PeriodicalId":53174,"journal":{"name":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Limitations of Lao Sze Kwang’s “Trichotomy of the Self” in His Interpretation of Kierkegaard\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Ka-Pok-Tam\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/kierke-2021-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In 1959, Lao Sze-Kwang (1927 – 2012), a well-known Chinese Kantian philosopher and author of the New Edition of the History of Chinese Philosophy, published On Existentialist Philosophy introducing existential philosophers to Chinese readers. This paper argues that Lao misinterpreted Kierkegaard’s ultimate philosophical quest of “how to become a Christian” as a question of ‘virtue completion,’ because he failed to recognize and acknowledge Kierkegaard’s distinction between aesthetic, moral and religious passion. By describing and clarifying Lao’s misinterpretation, the paper then argues that Lao’s trichotomy of the self fails to give due credit to the independence of religiousness from morality and aesthetics in Kierkegaard’s thought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/kierke-2021-0022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kierke-2021-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1959年,著有新版《中国哲学史》的中国著名康德哲学家劳思光(1927 - 2012)出版了《存在主义哲学论》,向中国读者介绍了存在主义哲学家。本文认为,劳把克尔凯郭尔“如何成为一个基督徒”的终极哲学追求误解为“美德完成”的问题,因为他没有认识和承认克尔凯郭尔对审美、道德和宗教激情的区分。通过描述和澄清劳的误解,本文认为劳的自我三分法没有充分考虑到克尔凯郭尔思想中宗教与道德和美学的独立性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Limitations of Lao Sze Kwang’s “Trichotomy of the Self” in His Interpretation of Kierkegaard
Abstract In 1959, Lao Sze-Kwang (1927 – 2012), a well-known Chinese Kantian philosopher and author of the New Edition of the History of Chinese Philosophy, published On Existentialist Philosophy introducing existential philosophers to Chinese readers. This paper argues that Lao misinterpreted Kierkegaard’s ultimate philosophical quest of “how to become a Christian” as a question of ‘virtue completion,’ because he failed to recognize and acknowledge Kierkegaard’s distinction between aesthetic, moral and religious passion. By describing and clarifying Lao’s misinterpretation, the paper then argues that Lao’s trichotomy of the self fails to give due credit to the independence of religiousness from morality and aesthetics in Kierkegaard’s thought.
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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