多元论·对话·文化间哲学

【作者】 王桂彩（思竹）；

【导师】 陈村富；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 外国哲学， 2004， 博士

【摘要】 本论文以当代人类的生存困境为背景，介绍和阐释当代思想家雷蒙·潘尼卡(Raimon Panikkar)的相关思想。 我们这个时代被称为“全球时代”或“全球化时代”，甚至“第二轴心时代”或者“新轴心时代”。这些名称意味着这个时代有着在根本上区别于以往时代(“现代时代”或者“第一轴心时代”)的特征，尽管人们对于其具体特征是什么及有着什么样的具体蕴涵仍在争论之中，它已对我们全人类构成新的挑战却是不争的事实。 在学科专门化的今天，潘尼卡是为数不多的对时代挑战作出整体回应的人之一。对时代挑战作出回应，对潘尼卡来说远不是仅仅作一些纯粹理论性的探讨，对他来说，这毋宁说是一个重大的生存论要务。我们在论文中(第一章)首先回顾了潘尼卡八十多年的人生旅程，总结了他作为修士和作为学者的多方面灵性成果和思想成果，从中可看到潘尼卡首先在他的个人生命中对时代作出了生存论上的回应。 在论文的主体部分(第二到第四章)，我们以一个“三位一体”的理论框架重构了潘尼卡对时代挑战的回应： 第一，多元论是潘尼卡对时代困境的解释。他把当前人类的生存困境理解为一种多元论困境：孤立和隔离已不再可能，而且任何一种统一都不令人信服，换言之，一和多的张力达到了极致，达到了不可和解、无法妥协的地步。在发达的现代技术特别是交通、通讯手段的支持下，世界上各个传统的人的频频相遇在今天已成了日常之事，并由此引发了一个迫切需要解决的生存论难题：这些来自不同传统的人如何相处?他们该如何对待彼此不同的哲学体系、生活方式等?对这些问题没有一个确定的看法，但有一点是无疑的：没有哪一个传统可以超越于其他传统之上，也没有一个人为捏造的所谓“统一方案”可以凌驾于所有传统之上。另外，来自经济、政治、生态、军事等方面的危机更是一道加剧了这一困境。 潘尼卡一方面以一种直接的方式揭示这一困境的实质(一和多的极度张力，构成多元论困境)、根源和挑战，另一方面指出，这一困境恰恰从根本上否定了一元论和二元论的解决方式，需要以一种非二元论的或者说多元论的方式来回应。就这一点而言，多元论不但是对时代困境的解释，也同时提供了一种回应它的选择方案。我们分别从宇宙性信心、由冲突到张力和走向他者等几个方面展示了潘尼卡所主张的多元论态度的实际蕴涵。最后，我们还介绍了潘尼卡在与多元论密切相关的身份问题上的看法。 第二，对话是潘尼卡回应时代挑战的实践方式。从对时代挑战的性质的理解(多元论)出发，潘尼卡提出把对话作为贯彻多元论精神的行动方式。潘尼卡特别强调对话与多元论之间的关联，注重从多元论的理解引出对话的必要性和可能性，使对话能够通向人与人之间以及不同传统之间的真正相遇。对对话方法的反思，使他提出“对话的对话”，区别于他所称的“辩证的对话”。辩证的对话是完全按照对实在的辩证理解展开的对话，对话者努力作为理性的存在物介入与对话伙伴的会谈，以达成一种唯一正确的和合乎理性的理解为目标。潘尼卡认为，辩证的对话是需要的，然而是不够的，而且由于它常常对实在坚持一种完全辩证的、出自单一文化的理解，在不同文化的相遇中根本不合适。因此潘尼卡主张以“对话的对话”来限制、补充和超越“辩证的对话”。在潘尼卡的理解中，对话的对话是一种更为整全的、深层的相遇方法，介入其中的不只是理性的人，而是作为整体的人，不只是历史的人，而是兼具历史维度和超历史维度的人。由于对话的对话的整全性和深层性，它被潘尼卡视为真正的跨文化相遇的方法。 第三，“文化间哲学”是潘尼卡提出的回应时代挑战的方法论，是在各个文化内部以及它们的关系之中实践多元论和对话的方式。潘尼卡把文化间哲学视为对文化间挑战的一种多元论方式的回应，是单一文化主义和多元文化主义之外的一条中道，即，既不主张单一文化一统天下(不论以多么宽容的方式对待其他文化)，也不主张各个文化的简单共存，不论是相互隔离的共存还是相互兼容的共存。根据潘尼卡的理解，文化间哲学不是与特定文化的特定哲学相并列的一种哲学，它本身没有具体的内涵，它只是一个形式性的概念，它相对于那些特定哲学有一种超越性。我们需要这样一种哲学概念，以理解特定哲学之间的统一性，同时也是为了特定哲学之间的相互丰富。反过来说，文化间哲学又是建立在对诸文化的特定哲学的内部理解和经验的基础上的，潘尼卡已在方法上提出走向文化间哲学的第一步:形式相似的等价物。他认为可以通过寻找形式相似的等价物而以一种内部的方式理解另一文化传统，而最终可以在整合不同传统的理解的基础上形成一种既内在又超越的跨文化哲学观念(扩展开来可以包括跨文化的宗教哲学、跨文化的人类学等等)。但潘尼卡始终强调，文化间哲学既作为永远的应许之地为我们所追求，又作为永远的无人之地不能为我们所占据，我们要始终注意不能以我们的特定哲学观念去代替它，无论我们相信自己的哲学观念具有多大的包容性。文化间哲学始终与多元论保持一致，始终依赖于对话，而且是没有止境的对话。 在论文的最后部分(更多还原

【Abstract】 In this thesis, the author introduces and interpretates a contemporary thinker, Raimon Panikkar’s thoughts with our human being’s contemporary existential predicament as the academic background.Some people name our times as "the global age" or "the globalization age" , or even as "the second axial age" or "the new axial age" , which means that this times has some fundamentally new features differing from all the past ages, and constituting a new challenge.Panikkar is one of the few men that responds to our times’ challenge from a wholistic perspective in nowadays when the specialization of knowledge is so developed. Panikkar make his response to the times’ challenge not merely on the therotical level, but on the existential level. He made such a response firstly through and in his own life, as shown in the first chapter in this thesis.In the main part of this thesis (from chapter 2 to 4), the author reconstructs Panikkar’s response to this times’ challenge in a trinitarian frame as follows:Firstly, pluralism as the interpretation for the contemporary human being’s predicament. Panikkar interpretes our current existential predicament as a kind of pluralist predicament, in which separation and isolation is no longer possible, nor any kind of unity. In other words, the tension between one and many is to the extent that there is no room for the reconciliation or compromise. Due to the developed modern technology (especially in communication and traffic), people from different traditions encounter more and more often in their daily life, which introduces an existential problem which need be solved exigently: how should we, followers of different tradition, get along with each other and do with mutual philosophical and way of life? One pointed is clear: no tradition will be admitted as a unifying one over all the others, nor will any kind of artificial unitive "project" .Panikkar reveals the substance of this predicament in an immediate and urgent way and by the same time he pointed that in fact the predicament’s nature precisely denies the resolution both of monism and dualism and calls for a nondualist or pluralist response. In this sense, pluralism is not only posed as an interpretation for the contemporary predicament, but also as an alternative to respond to it. The author elucidates the practical implications of a pluralist attitude that Panikkar advocates, which conclude the cosmic trust, a shift from conflict to tension and approach to the other. Finally, the author also introduces Panikkar’s point of view on the problem of identity which is connected with pluralism.Secondly, dialogue as a practical way to respond to the times’ challenge. According his understanding of the nature of the times’ challenge (pluralism), Panikkar suggest we should be engaged in dialogue, incarnating a pluralist attitude. The close connection between dialogue and pluralism is so emphasized that the necessity and possibility of dialogue is derived from a pluralist understanding of our predicament. Panikkar’s reflection of the dialogic method makes him bring forward a new method of "dialogical dialogue" , which is distinguished from "dialectic dialogue" . Dialectic dialogue is a kind of dialogue departing from a dialectic understanding of the real, with the participant as a rational being, aiming at a unique rational understanding of the real. Panikkar affirms that dialectic dialogue is necessary but not adequate, nor is it sufficient for a crosscultural encounter, since it usually insists on a purely dialectic understanding from a single culture or tradition. As a more wholistic method, dialogical dialogue is adduced to limit, complement and transcend dialectic dialogue. Indialogical dialogue, one participates not merely as a rational being but a whole being, not merely as a historical being but a being both with a historical dimension and a transhistorical dimension. Panikkar recommends dialogical dialogue as an adequate method for crosscultural encounter.Thirdly, intercultural philosophy as a methodolog更多还原