請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23485
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳榮華 | |
dc.contributor.author | Kun-Lung Hsieh | en |
dc.contributor.author | 謝坤龍 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T05:02:18Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、海德格著作與論文
(一)原文部分 Sein und Zeit. 15th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemayer Verlag, 1979. (二)英譯部分 Heidegger, Martin (1962). Being and Time. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (trans.). New York: Harper and Row. --- (1984). The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. Michael Heim (trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. --- (1982). The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Albert Hofstadter (trans). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. --- (1985). The History of the Concept of Time. Theodore Kisiel (trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 二、相關著作與期刊論文 (一)英文部分 Blattner, William D. (1994). “Is Heidegger a Kantian Idealist.” Inquiry, 37:185-201. --- (2004). “Heidegger’s Kantian idealism revisted.” Inquiry, 47, 4: 321-337. Carman, Taylor (2003). Heidegger’s Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in Being and Time. Cambridge University Press. Cerbone, David R. (1994). “World, World-entry, and Realism in Early Heidegger.” Inquiry, 38: 401-421. Dorothea Frede (1986). “Heidegger and the the Scandal of Philosophy.” A. N. Perovich and M. V. Wedin (eds.). Human Nature and Natural Knowledge (129-152). Boston: D. Reidel. Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1991). Being-in-the-world. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Hoffman, Piotr (2000). “Heidegger and the Problem of Idealism.” Inquiry, 43: 403-412 Kockelmans Joseph J. (1989). Heidegger’s Being and Time: The Analytic of Dasein as Fundamental Ontology. The Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology. Philipse, Herman (1998). Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being: A Critical Interpretation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Theodore R. Schatzki (1992). “Early Heidegger on Being, the Clearing, and Realism.” Hubert Dreyfus and H. Hall (eds.). Heidegger: A Critical Reader. Cambridge (81-98): Blackwell. (二)中文部分 陳榮華(2006)。海德格《存有與時間》闡釋。臺北:國立臺灣大學出版中心。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23485 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 根據海德格,實在論主張外在世界是實有的,並嘗試以在外在世界中相互作用的存有者來證明這一點。相對地,觀念論相信實有(而不是實有者)存在於意識中,但觀念論未能理解實有以及存有者的本質。這是說,實在論與觀念論都預設了不適當的存有學。本文要證實,由於海德格對實在論與觀念論的批評建立在適當的存有學上,因此海德格提供了比實在論與觀念論更令人滿意的實有與存有者解釋。
近年來,有些研究海德格存有學立場的學者堅持海德格是實在論者,另外一些學者則認為他是觀念論者。但他們提出的論證令人困惑。畢竟,如果海德格早已否認他自己是實在論者或觀念論者,那麼在什麼意義下我們可以主張他是實在論者或觀念論者?再者,若海德格哲學奠基在全然不同於實在論與觀念論所預設的存有學上,那麼我們如何能宣稱海德格是實在論者或觀念論者? 本文的核心在於,釐清《存有與時間》的存在分析與實在論和觀念論之間的關聯。為完成這個工作,本文首先概略說明海德格用以批評實在論與觀念論的存在分析,以及由此批評產生的問題。其次,我列舉一些探討海德格是實在論者或觀念論者的論證。接著,我分析這些論證並指出它們的困難。最後,本文回到《存有與時間》的文本,特別是第43節,以闡釋海德格在相關問題上的基本立場、論證、關懷。本文的最後結論是,以上論證都沒有把握到海德格的基本存有學。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | According to Heidegger realism is the theory that advocates the reality of the external world, and it tries to prove this thesis by the interaction of entities within it. On the contrary, idealism believes that reality (not the real) exists in consciousness, but it does not know the essence of reality and of entities. That is to say, both realism and idealism base themselves on an inappropriate ontology. However I want to show that Heidegger’s criticisms of them build on an appropriate ontology, so that he may provide a more satisfactory interpretation on reality and entities than that of realism and idealism.
Recently we find many arguments focusing on the ontological commitment of early Heidegger. Some of them insist that Heidegger is a realist, and others think that he is an idealist. These arguments make readers bewildered. For, on what extent may we assert that Heidegger is a realist or that he is an idealist, both of which Heidegger had already denied himself to be? And, how can we say that Heidegger is a realist or an idealist, if his philosophy is founded on an ontology completely different from that of realism and idealism? The principal aim in this paper is to clarify the logical connection between Heidegger’s existential analytic and realism/idealism. I first describe briefly Heidegger’s existential analytic by which he criticizes realism/idealism, and the problems derived from them. Then I marshal a few papers concerning the question whether Heidegger is a realist or is an idealist. Furthermore I try to analyze the arguments in these papers and show the difficulties they make. Finally I turn to Sein und Zeit, especially sec.43, in order to expound Heidegger’s basic positions, arguments, and concerns. I finally argue that the above arguments fail to grasp the fundamental ontology of Heidegger. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T05:02:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R92124012-1.pdf: 727095 bytes, checksum: 0e6fb1af1626eab892c411ba0991989d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
中文摘要........................................................................................................i 英文摘要......................................................................................................iii 本文所使用之海德格著作略語表...............................................................v 第一章 前 言.............................................................................................1 第一節 本文所探討之爭論出處:《存有與時間》第一篇................1 第二節 海德格對傳統哲學實有觀的批評與爭論............................6 第三節 《存有與時間》第43節的論辯.........................................11 第二章 「存在分析」是實在論或觀念論..............................................19 第一節 霍夫曼論《存有與時間》的觀念論困難.............................19 第二節 布拉特納論海德格的存有觀念論......................................24 第三節 賽朋論《存有與時間》的「世界」與「實在論」....................32 第三章 檢視實在論與觀念論解釋...........................................................42 第一節 對極端觀念論的批判..........................................................42 第二節 對觀念論與實在論的批判..................................................48 第三節 對實在論的批判..................................................................57 第四章 海德格的存在分析與實有觀批判的關聯...................................64 第一節 海德格對實在論的批判......................................................65 第二節 海德格對觀念論的批判......................................................69 第三節 海德格對懷疑論的批判......................................................73 第五章 結 語...........................................................................................78 參考文獻.....................................................................................................83 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 海德格《存有與時間》的實在論與觀念論之爭 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Debates on Reailsm and Idealim in Heidesgger's Sein und Zeit | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林維杰,吳俊業 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 海德格,存有學,現象學,實在論,觀念論, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Heidegger,ontology,phenomenology,realism,idealism, | en |
dc.relation.page | 84 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 哲學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 哲學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 710.05 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。