跨历史对话可能性刍议
日期:04-03
古拉姆瑞扎·阿瓦尼
伊朗哲学学会
伊朗哲学学会
摘要
对话具有今天的对话性论域通常不加考虑的意义。首先,我将参考诸多标准字典中“对话”的词义,论述对话在人类个人、国内、文化、政治和教育生活中的重要意义。哲学词典和百科全书中很少提及“对话”一词,对话的角色往往被“辩法”取代,而辩证法在柏拉图、亚里士多德、康德和黑格尔哲学中的意义各不相同,尤其是在康德和后康德主义哲学中,辩证法与消解跨历史对话可能性的历史局限密不可分。
接下来,我尝试东西方的圣哲们怎样提出并提倡了跨历史的对话概念。如果我们真正相信他们,我们就在当下与他们形成了对话。借鉴他们的教诲,既是历史又是超历史的普遍对话变为可能。
最后,我将论证这种跨历史对话能够対治今天所有的宗教原教旨主义和凡俗主义的流行,以及如何拯救所谓的文明冲突引发的敌意。
接下来,我尝试东西方的圣哲们怎样提出并提倡了跨历史的对话概念。如果我们真正相信他们,我们就在当下与他们形成了对话。借鉴他们的教诲,既是历史又是超历史的普遍对话变为可能。
最后,我将论证这种跨历史对话能够対治今天所有的宗教原教旨主义和凡俗主义的流行,以及如何拯救所谓的文明冲突引发的敌意。
A Prologue to the Possibility of a Transhistorical Dialogue
Gholamreza AAVANI
the Iranian Institute of Philosophy
Abstract
Dialogue possesses some meanings that are not usually taken into consideration in the dialogical discourse today. First, with a view to the lexical definition of “dialogue” in many standard dictionaries, I will show what a significant role dialogue plays in the individual, domestic, cultural, political, and educational aspects of human life. Dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy 1seldom have an entry on “dialogue,” whose role is usurped by “dialectic” which itself has quite different meanings in Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, especially in the Kantian and Post-Kantian philosophy in which it is indissolubly bound to the confines of historicity making a trans-historical dialogue impossible.
In the next part, I try to show how the great sages of history, Eastern or Western have espoused and propounded a transhistorical conception of dialogue. And when we truly understand them, we are as if in a dialogue with them here and now, and in the lights of their luminous teachings, a universal dialogue, both historical and transhistorical, becomes feasible.
Finally, I will argue that such a transhistorical dialogue is an antidote to all kinds of fundamentalism religious or secular prent today, and how this could be a remedy to all hostilities engendered by the so-called “clash of civilizations.”
In the next part, I try to show how the great sages of history, Eastern or Western have espoused and propounded a transhistorical conception of dialogue. And when we truly understand them, we are as if in a dialogue with them here and now, and in the lights of their luminous teachings, a universal dialogue, both historical and transhistorical, becomes feasible.
Finally, I will argue that such a transhistorical dialogue is an antidote to all kinds of fundamentalism religious or secular prent today, and how this could be a remedy to all hostilities engendered by the so-called “clash of civilizations.”
下一:梁漱溟与宏观历史