| dc.contributor | 行政院國家科學委員會 | en_US |
| dc.contributor | 國立政治大學哲學系 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 汪文聖 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2010 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 14-十一月-2011 10:49:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 14-十一月-2011 10:49:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 14-十一月-2011 10:49:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51931 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 在本人近三?進?國科會研究計劃：「聖奧古斯丁在現象學??學?的意義 – 從鄂?、海德格往胡?爾回溯」中，發現海德格於1920-21?的授課講義「宗教現象學導?」中所提出的一個概?「形態符指」實值得專作處?。這個概?在海內外學術界尚未被廣泛與深入討?。國外著名現象學學者Theodore Kiesel多??指出該概?隱含於海德格的《存有與時間》內，是作為方法瞭解該書乃至於?晚著作的關鍵術語。而近??致?於現象學與?學關?的James K.A. Smith是重視此概?的另一代表，他視形態符指的方法就內涵言，即是當今法國哲學家如德希達、?維納斯、馬?翁等，在批判早先現象學未能真正掌握他者或超越者，所提出的一些方法的前身；他進而以為奧古斯丁對於上帝懺悔而接近上帝的方式，即有如形態符指的展現。但他們對於此概?的?源並未探究，以至於其真正的意義仍未讓?者清楚明白。大?學者張??與孫周興是迄今華人學術界少?強調該概?重要性的代表，他們對其根本義涵也未作討?；二者將之譯為形式顯示或形式指引，即突顯出此概?實有再釐清與探源的必要。從本人的譯詞?看，反映?未?計畫將研究的?個方向：一是形態，它將和希?字的morphe扣?在一起討?；另一是符指，它將和符號置於同等層次?看。鑒於前者，本人將向亞?斯多德的質形?探究該概?之其一?源；鑒於後者，胡?爾在《?輯研究》處?的經驗、表述與符號間奠基與層級關係，以及海德格對之?同看法，如表現於《存有與時間》?的某個章節，則成?本人探究該概??源的另一方向。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | In my research project of recent three years: “Significance of Saint Augustine in the Phenomenological Ethics – Retrospect from Arendt, Heidegger to Husserl”, I have found that the concept of “formal indication”, which Heidegger posited in his 1920/21 Lecture: “Introduction of the Phenomenological Religion”, is worthy to be treated especially. This concept has not yet been widely and profoundly discussed within the local and international scholarship. However, the famous phenomenologist Theodore Kisiel has since several years pointed out that the concept of “formal indication” is implied in Heidegger’s Being and Time, and it is a key term as method for the reader to understand this book and even his later works. Another scholar James K.A. Smith also estimates this concept very well. He sees “formal indication” as the forerunner method for some contemporary philosophers such as Derrida, Levinas, and Marion who criticized the early phenomenology to be not able to grasp authentically the other or the transcendent. He further believes that the way Augustine showed in his Confessions facing God is quasi a demonstration of the “formal indication’. But they have not investigated the origin of this concept so that its meaning is not yet cleared for the reader. Zang Xianlong and Sun Zhouxing in the mainland China belong to the rare Chinese Scholars who have discussed this important concept, however their discussion is for me not profoundly enough. The Chinese translation of it by them shows already that not only the meaning, but also the origin of this concept should be more investigated. My Chinese translation of it reflects the two directions of my research in the future: Firstly, the word “form” is to be connected with the Greek word morphe; secondly, the word “indication” is to be seen on the same level as “sign”, even “symbol”. Regarding the former, I want to investigate Aristotle’s theory of matter-form as one of the origin of the concept of “formal indication”. Regarding the latter, what Husserl treated in Logical Investigations of the topics of foundation and relationship between experience, expression and indication, and what Heidegger had differently meant to it, which is manifested in some chapter of Being and Time, offer me another direction to investigate the origin of this concept. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 基礎研究 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 學術補助 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究期間:9908~ 10007 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究經費:530仟元 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 形態符指;超越;現象學;海德格;胡塞爾;亞里斯多德 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | formal indication;transcendence;phenomenology;Heidegger;Husserl; Aristotle | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 海德格「形態符指」方法的探源 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Tracing of Heidegger`s Methode of Formal Indication | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | en |
