江日新，〈老子哲學有多哲學？從漢學到哲學的閱讀與解釋〉(中壢：國立中央大學哲學研究所博士論文， 2015)。
Jiang, Ryh-shin, “How Philosophical is the Philosophy of Laozi? From a sinological to a philosophical interpretation,” Zhongli, Taiwan: PhD Dissertation of National Central University, 2015.
中文摘要
對於以「老子哲學有多哲學？」作為本論文的題目，其在研究上所訴求的目的主要是為要讓中國哲學在面對西方哲學時，針對其中有關合法性的問題，藉由其在名稱及問題性質之規定上所遍歷的歷史過程，以及它在哲學史書寫中的寫入事實，逼顯出在接受史上中國哲學作為哲學之性質的存在區分與認同理由。
基於上述的目的設定，對於論題之資料來源，我們擬定以收集包括1. 可用來檢討哲學史書寫模式的一般哲學史以及中國哲學史的著作；2. 在讀解老子哲學之歷史過程中的西文代表譯著，以及在初期邂逅下有關強調作為哲學閱讀之建構、評論老子哲學的「原始的」中西文著作，作為研析的主要文獻材料，同時並佐以處理知識之社會條件及其形式的知識社會學、涉及陌生會遇的陌生解釋學，以及文辭訓詁對於概念構成的難題學或問題學，作為研究方法的參考間架來處理我們取得的文獻資料。
在研究過程中作為實際展開的論題，我們在多方可行的細目中選取四個議題作為主要的論述題目，亦即1. 藉由回顧自1655年以至1900年具代表性的一般哲學史書寫，檢討西方對於中國哲學之寫入或不寫入的立論理由；2. 藉由1945年以前的中國哲學史書寫來檢視老子哲學的哲學性規定；3. 然後根據所取得可能作於1720年代的最早老子《道德經》譯本，以及雷慕沙於1823年所發表的選譯本，檢視其對於老子著作之文本作為哲學解讀或漢學解讀的啟動以及傳統之形成；4. 最後再以鳥瞰式的觀察，檢視直至1945年以前西方在漢學傳統下的老子哲學解讀，以及在此之後於西方和中國哲學界對於的老子哲學之哲學性的重新理解與體系重建。事實上由於中國哲學作為哲學的哲學性認知，先存在著一個希臘的辯證之論證傳統，而中國卻少卻這樣一種辯證之論證傳統，但就哲學之追求不可限定的智慧之特徵規定，我們認為另一種在初始啟動的智慧洞見中，出以一種共締的註解與解釋學的參予，對於同樣為要逼顯出或趨近於智慧真理或窮至於一種原理學的愛智訴求，其實是可以看作殊途而同歸的哲學活動。以是老子哲學因此亦可以是為一種哲學。
關鍵字：老子哲學、中國哲學、《道德經》翻譯、哲學史書寫、陌生解釋學
Abstract
This dissertation aims at revisiting the history of Taoism as philosophy in the view of Western and Chinese academic circles. To this end the author examines the recognition of Laozi’s thought as true philosophy by reviewing the Western reception of Taoism in particular and its reconstruction in the Chinese philosophical discourse in general, as can be observed in the historiography of philosophy in the 17th through 20th centuries. The author approaches it as a subject of Sino-European philosophical encounter via a threefold methodology: Sociology of Knowledge, Xenology and Aporetics (N. Hartmann). To put it in terms of the dissertation’s title “How philosophical is the philosophy of Laozi?”, the author tries to address this question from within the knowledge construction of an ongoing quest of xeno-cultural hermeneutics, as conditioned by different social systems.
Four main chapters are proposed to meet the aforementioned goal. By reviewing the Western works of the general history of philosophy between 1655 and 1900, chapter one tries to assess the reasons for including or not Chinese philosophy in the history of philosophy. Chapter two examines how Laozi’s philosophy is defined by the historical writings on philosophy in Japan and China before 1945. In chapter three, the author focuses on the beginnings and progress of the philosophical and sinological interpretations of Taoism by examining the first Western translation of Daodejing produced in the 1720s by the Jesuit Jean-François Noëlas (1669-1740), and its first French rendering by Abel-Rémusat (1788-1832). Chapter four, finally, offers a brief historical overview of the sinological interpretations of Daodejing by early European sinologists such as Pauthier (1801-1873), Julien (1797-1873), Chalmers (1825-1899), Legge (1815-1897), von Strauß (1809-1899) etc., as well as a review of philosophical interpretations of this classic by both Western and Chinese philosophers from the late 19th century till around 1945.
Based on this review of the historiography of philosophy the author seeks to highlight the two perceptions of philosophy, viz. the Greek tradition of dialectical argumentation and the Chinese type of philosophy that combines the Insight of the Sages and the Commentaries of the followers. The author proposes to define the philosophy of Laozi as a concurrence (Mitbestimmung) in the course of questioning-and-answering (Fragen-Antworten) by ongoing commentaries on the initial insight. Consequently, the author concludes that the philosophy of Laozi is philosophical in being one of the different ways of partaking in the activity of loving wisdom (philo-sophia).
Keywords: Philosophy of Laozi, Chinese Philosophy, Translation of Daodejing, Historiography of History of Philosophy, Xeno-Hermeneutics
来源：EUChina
评论