我批評沈旭暉〈給唐英年的信〉一文中「形而上」和「形而下」兩個詞語意義不清，有人卻認為形而上 / 形而下這個分別是哲學的入門知識，言下之意似乎是稍懂哲學的人都明白這兩個詞語的意思。這樣看「形而上」和「形而下」，可是個不太美麗的誤會了。
如果「形而上」只是英文 "metaphysical" 的翻譯，那麼它的意思我大致是懂的（我的履歷上，專長列的是「知識論和形而上學」，當然要說懂！）；用「形而上」來翻譯 "metaphysical"，是取「而上」和 "meta" 都有高一層的意思，而 "physical" 指物理世界，以「形」字概之，亦不為過。然而，在這個意義下的「形而上」，卻沒有一個「形而下」和它相對。在西方哲學，和 "metaphysical" 相對的是 "physical"，不是 "mesaphysical" （世上並無此字，有學者提議用 "mesa" 來相對 "meta"，我只是順其意作此一字）；如果 "metaphysical" 是「形而上」，那麼 "physical" 便只是「形」，不是「形而下」。
「形而上」和「形而下」二語出自《周易》〈繫辭上〉：「形而上者謂之道，形而下者謂之器。」這兩個詞語在這裏當然有它們的意義，但要弄清楚也不容易，各家註解都有出入。我的理解是，這兩句是順前兩段「形乃謂之器」一句而言，「形而上」和「形而下」講的仍然是形 --- 發展出人文化成的價值理想者就是道，否則仍不過是器；這與西方哲學說的 "metaphysical" 全無關係。無論如何，現在用「形而上」和「形而下」二語的人，一般都不會認為自己是用《周易》的原意。
其實，就算只是講 "metaphysical" 意思的「形而上」，也不好講。"Metaphysics" 一字源於整理亞里士多德著作的學者將幾本亞氏沒有命名的書排在 Physics 一書後，統稱 "Metaphysics"，"meta" 只是指排列的次序而已。亞氏在這些書中討論的是哲學裏一些最根本的問題，例如本體論（ontology）；西方哲學後來順此發展出 metaphysics 這一研究範圍，但究竟 metaphysics 包括甚麼，也沒有人能說得清楚。我教 Metaphysics 一科時，開宗明義就說我不懂得怎樣界定 "metaphysics"，希望學生在研讀過七、八個公認的 metaphysical problems 後，自己理出個看法來，或至少有個籠統的理解（我用的教科書也是採取這個教法）。
有些人在文章裏用的「形而上」和「形而下」二語，如果脈絡清楚，大都可以用其他較少語意問題的詞語代替（例如「抽象」、「玄妙」、「有哲理」、「超自然」、「非經驗的」）；要翻譯成英文，也要看脈絡，不能一概「形而上」就譯作 "metaphysical"，「形而下」就譯作 …（我也不知是甚麼了）。我說沈旭暉一文中「形而上」和「形而下」兩個詞語意義不清，就是因為他的「形而上」顯然不是 metaphysical 的意思，而語句的脈絡又不足以讓人用其他詞語代替「形而上」和「形而下」。不信？你試試看。
上哲學課讀過點Metaphysics，但無法弄清它是甚麼。如果文章是寫過普羅大眾看，還是用簡單的詞語好些。
回覆刪除「形而上學」這個譯名來自周易，但譯者卻是明治時代日本哲學家井上哲次郎。而同時代中國的嚴復則譯之為「玄學」，比「形而上」似乎更「玄」乎。後來「形而上學」一詞在中日韓三國都被固定下來。
回覆刪除「形而上學」這個說法很容易讓某些人有不適當聯想。據我所知，如在日本，近年已有用音譯「メタフィジックス」，雖然尚不普及，但很多學術用語都直接用片假名譯出，擺脫了漢字的某種束縛，少了不少翻譯的麻煩和美麗誤會。
（我又想起在大陸，因為「偉大的」毛主席的緣故，形而上學更被認為是「唯心論」之類的「負面」東西。很多不認識哲學的人，一聽到形而上學就本能地感到不對勁～）
这里不是政治课，没必要把政治扯上来
刪除這樣如何：
回覆刪除你說「這個世界是豐富多元的，我們應該有包容的胸襟，尊重他人的想法和意見，而不是對持相反意見的人動輒口誅筆伐」。每字都正面，但句子是不平衡的﹕「多元」是客觀、價值上的，泛指不同觀點、生活方式的並存，是恆常的﹔「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」是主觀、行動上的，每個時代都不同，說句術語，被建構的。
50後常主觀標籤青年「動輒口誅筆伐」，得到後者客觀上反多元的結論。但單以行動上論證價值上是無意義的，像行動上的五四運動口誅筆伐，帶來了價值上的多元﹔上一代不接受粗口，「百X成才」卻是個別網絡百花齊放的grammar。
青年發表不同意見正是支持多元，若因行動上的「口誅筆伐」而被標籤、邊緣化，難免深信50後在偷換概念，進行反多元的思想壟斷。若有心確立多元，lend me your ears，無論對方的口筆如何，都應有包容胸襟。
剛剛重看沈文該段落，似乎他的「形而上」是指心中的理念（支持多元），而「形而下」則是指外在的行為（口誅筆伐）。他似乎是指不能從單外在的行為否定某人心中的理念（「單以形而下論證形而上是無意義的」），而不同時代對那些外在的行為有不同的評價（所謂「被建構」）。
回覆刪除剛才沒看到Yan兄的回覆。Yan兄以「形以上/形以下」為「價值上/行動上」的，而小弟則以「形以上/形以下」為「心中的理念/外在的行為」，兩者似有異曲同工之妙。
回覆刪除Barry,
回覆刪除//如果文章是寫過普羅大眾看，還是用簡單的詞語好些。//
- 至少應盡量如此，故意寫得複雜就不要得。
CYC,
回覆刪除原來如此！謝謝你詳盡的補充。
Yan and Meshi,
回覆刪除//剛才沒看到Yan兄的回覆。Yan兄以「形以上/形以下」為「價值上/行動上」的，而小弟則以「形以上/形以下」為「心中的理念/外在的行為」，兩者似有異曲同工之妙。//
- 為何「價值/心中的理念」與「客觀」並列，而「行動上/外在的行為」與「主觀」並列？
Hi Wong, I finally just saw this, thank you so much for your help with explaining the various philosophical nuances relating to "metaphysics", as well as clarifying how 形以上/形以下 as understood from I Ching aren't readily translatable into equivalent Western philosophical concepts.
回覆刪除When I attempted my translation of Shen's work, I already saw from Baidu that 形以上 is translated as "metaphysical" by a Japanese scholar. Unfortunately, when it comes to Shen's own passage, it just does not make much sense to talk about "pluralism" being a metaphysical concept, especially when he then contrasted that against terms like "respectful" (as after all, we can't really describe "respectful" as "physical" or "material" or "real" in contrast -- as potential antonyms for "metaphysical" -- in a way that not only fits with Western philosophies regarding these adjectives, but also in a way that ensures the sentence make some sort of narrative common sense!).
Thus I had to cast about trying to find some substitutes that somehow get at what I think he means (and what I think I understood 形以上/形以下 to mean, as interpreted by various I Ching scholars that I briefly read about online), whilst doing so in a way that does diminish further the sentence's actual readability!
(In the end I just settled for "abstract ideal" for 形以上 as opposed to "metaphysical" per se, and 形以下 as "empirical", even though I know that these terms are quite far from satisfactory.)
I'm therefore very grateful to know from your post that the problems I encountered in understanding 形以上/形以下 is actually because these are not easily interpreted from a Western philosophical standpoint.
What frustrates me though is not so much that there does not exist readily available Western equivalent terms for 形以上/形以下 (which happens quite often when crossing cultural boundaries anyway), but rather how Shen was simply being deliberately obtuse in his writing. (Or perhaps he was simply being careless?)
It's good to know that I am not the only one who find it exceedingly difficult to appreciate exactly what Shen was trying to say in the above passage. I agree with you that he shouldn't have used such a complicated philosophical term, especially when its usage obscures rather than enlightens readers as to his intentional meanings.
The thing is, I seriously don't think the problem is that we as readers are lazy or careless in our reading of his letter, or even that we are simply unintelligent and poorly-read compared to Shen, it's actually precisely because we understood the more nuanced meanings of these concepts that it's irritating to see them used so cavalierly in what is meant to be scholarly writing, or at least a piece of writing that is meant to appeal to an intelligent audience. In the end all his "clever" references did was to irritate those of us who are actually keen to understand what he's had to say.
Or perhaps Shen's goal was solely to impress rather than to communicate... in which case he would have also failed, as a sign of a true scholar is one who wears his/her considerable learning lightly.
Anyway, I've written too much on the above already, very sorry for another long-winded comment that hogs your comment page. Thanks also to other commenters above for sharing your interpretations of what Shen was getting at. It makes for quite fascinating reading and I'm learning a lot from your exchanges.
Wong,
回覆刪除/*為何「價值/心中的理念」與「客觀」並列，而「行動上/外在的行為」與「主觀」並列？*/
或許沈的思考方式就是這樣。「價值」與「客觀」是用來描述「多元」。兩者不相干對沈或許不重要。
「多元」是客觀、價值上的，泛指不同觀點、生活方式的並存，是恆常的﹔「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」是主觀、行動上的
cf.
芒果是黃色的、植物學上的，泛指一種水果、與其他水果並存，是美味的。燕窩是無色的、生物學上的。是無味的。
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除No problem. I enjoyed reading your comments. Just curious: Why did you bother translating Shen's article if you didn't like it?
Yan,
回覆刪除//或許沈的思考方式就是這樣。「價值」與「客觀」是用來描述「多元」。兩者不相干對沈或許不重要。//
- 如果「多元」是指有多元觀點這一事實，那麼這是客觀的，但這客觀事實卻不是價值的（evaluative）；如果「多元」是指這些多元觀點的內容，那可以是價值的，但卻未必是客觀的。因此，說「多元」同時是價值上的和客觀的，便有問題。
Wong,
回覆刪除如果「多元」指的是多元道德規範，那麼它便可以同時是客觀的及價值上的。它是客觀的，是因為每個理性的人也理解這個道德規範內容為何；它是價值上的，是因為規範就是價值規範。
Wong,
回覆刪除Yes it's strange how I felt compelled to translate that essay on first reading, I literally almost started typing when I started reading. I guess in large part it is due to his style of writing - my brain usually does automatic Chinese-to-English conversions when I read Chinese articles, and Shen's essay in this case just happens to really get me thinking about how to turn what he's trying to say into English. So translating this is a way for me to read his article properly. Especially when I was trying to make out why the heck he kept using "lend me your ears" in the middle of his Chinese sentences! When I realised that what he's trying to do is to address Henry Tang by that phrase, then I felt I may as well do his job for him and see if his essay would be more intelligible if it's turned back into English. It's good for me to find out if it's really a case of just my lack of Chinese comprehension skills or maybe also his lack of Chinese writing skills that's causing my "inner auto-translation machine" to completely malfunction when I first read his work!
To be honest, and to be fair to Shen, I learnt a lot too in this process, in addition to your kind pointers about metaphysics above, I never knew about the Pa Yi and Su Chai story that he mentioned either until I searched online, so perhaps I would still do another of his essays in future irrespective of how irritating his writing style may be :)
Yan,
回覆刪除//它是客觀的，是因為每個理性的人也理解這個道德規範內容為何//
- 既是多元，便應該是「它們」而不是「它」。假設只有M1和M2兩個不同的道德規範，分別為G1和G2兩群人接受。G1理解M1和M2的內容，卻只接受M1；G2理解M1和M2的內容，卻只接受M2。在哪個意義上M1和M2是客觀的？
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除Thanks for explaining.
Oh, actually, apropos of what you and Yan have been discussing above regarding whether 「多元」同時是價值上的和客觀的. If we agree that Pluralism is an ideological concept (thus normative / prescriptive), then it cannot be objective, as the latter is by definition value-free.
回覆刪除So I don't agree with "它是客觀的，是因為每個理性的人也理解這個道德規範內容為何", as soon as a concept involves moral content then it cannot be objective and rational. If we're assuming a rational actor then s/he acts not so much according to a moral framework (what is right vs wrong) but a utilitarian one (what generates the best outcome based on the actor's own interest).
(Or maybe I have completely misread what you were saying??)
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//as soon as a concept involves moral content then it cannot be objective and rational.//
- Well, some philosophers argue that morality is both objective and based on rationality.
Kantian morality? :)
回覆刪除Snowdrops,
回覆刪除Yes, Kantian philosophers think so, but there are non-Kantian philosophers who think so too.
Or let me explain myself a little better: if we agree that Pluralism is prescriptive (i.e. advocating how a particular society should be organised - in this case, allowing different viewpoints to coexist), then it is value-laden, not value-free, ergo, not Objective.
回覆刪除When we are talking of a value-laden concept, can it really be the case that 每個理性的人也理解這個道德規範內容為何? Each rational actor - even per Kantian rationality - act according to *their* own idea of self-interest (which Kant justifies as "moral"). They does bring into this content their own values, which may be objectively rational for the individual, but we cannot really talk about these group of individuals having a common, shared objective rationality.
Sorry for going on and on.
Oops, typo, "They THEN bring into this..."
回覆刪除「它」指對多元價值容忍這個規範，不是多元的價值規範。M1 和 M2 在這個意義下是客觀的：因為G1 和 G2 理解 M1 及 M2，他們也知道在何情況下 M1 或 M2 是被遵守的，在何情況下它們是被違反的。
回覆刪除Snowdrops,
回覆刪除I admit that my thoughts were not reflected throughout. I have some intuitions which are worked out in the course of discussion. Of course, the intuitions would at last turn out absurd.
Reading your English is quite pleasant. Thanks.
Yan,
回覆刪除You're too kind, I'm also just thinking out loud here really. In a way I hate to admit it but one of the previous commenters was right in that Shen's little essay did irritated me into thinking a lot more than perhaps I should!
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除I was telling the fact. I don't know when it started, I always think my ideas are not solid enough and they would be easily refuted.
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除//if we agree that Pluralism is prescriptive (i.e. advocating how a particular society should be organised - in this case, allowing different viewpoints to coexist), then it is value-laden, not value-free, ergo, not Objective. //
- Why can't we say pluralism is objectively true? You are still equating values with subjectivity, and this is at least questionable.
Yan,
回覆刪除//M1 和 M2 在這個意義下是客觀的：因為G1 和 G2 理解 M1 及 M2，他們也知道在何情況下 M1 或 M2 是被遵守的，在何情況下它們是被違反的。//
- Cf. B1和B2是不同的審美觀，G1接受B1，G2接受B2；G1和G2理解B1及B2，他們也知道在何情況下B1或B2是被依從的，在何情況下它們是被違反的，你可以據此就認為B1和B2是客觀的嗎？
看了你關於沈先生兩篇文。其實我都覺得沈生果篇文未免寫得太學術太高深，看了一遍，某些地方只大概明白。估唔到阿教授你都咁覺得，果d形而上形而下既terms，如果係俾大眾市民睇應該少用，唔係多數人睇完都一頭霧水。
回覆刪除睇完你篇文先知形而上既真正意思哩。至於讀者既留言討論形而上/形而下，會唔會大家既角度唔同，所以結論都唔同﹖語言上既問題，真係幾複雜。
艾力,
回覆刪除//至於讀者既留言討論形而上/形而下，會唔會大家既角度唔同，所以結論都唔同﹖語言上既問題，真係幾複雜。//
- 對，所以無必要就唔好講得咁複雜。
Hi Wong,
回覆刪除In what way is linking values with subjectivity questionable? (Please note I wasn't "equating" the two terms but linking them). Thanks.
Also, your comment led me to ask, in what ways can you deem pluralism as "objectively true"? It's interesting also that you've introduced "truth" into the "equation", as it were. I don't doubt that pluralism can be "true", but is it objective? That's my query.
(One can of course conduct empirical experiments to "objectively" determine the degree of "pluralism" that exists in a society according to a particular predefined version of "pluralism". But that operationalisation is only one version amongst many, and cannot be used as *the* objective truth regarding pluralism, and cannot be used to prove that pluralism itself is objective.)
Basically, I'm wondering if you are saying Wong that ideologies are objective? My point is and has been, that if pluralism is a type of ideology, and if ideologies are not objective (because it is prescriptive), then pluralism cannot be objective. How can prescription be objective? Please kindly explain.
(Of course, one could then question whether pluralism IS an ideology or not...)
(And apologies again but I really don't mean to drag this out, but your questioning has revealed interesting avenues on the subject and I'm quite interested in how you would argue *for* pluralism being objective, thanks).
Actually Wong re-reading your replies to Yan, you have already shown by logical deduction how pluralism (or any kind of ideology, which you transposed as a type of 審美觀) cannot be objective, by making the point (as I'd also done) that objectivity is hard to prevail when there exists different versions of the same thing held and accepted by different actors. Whilst pluralism can indeed be objectively investigated according *a* particular version of it, but that's not to say that pluralism itself is objective.
回覆刪除Snowdrops,
回覆刪除Your questions and the points you made (some of them are good) touch on some very deep philosophical questions about values and objectivity. There's no way that we can get to the bottom of the matter here, so I had better stop. Glad that this piece has stimulated such a lively discussion. Thanks.
Wong,
回覆刪除/*
- Cf. B1和B2是不同的審美觀，G1接受B1，G2接受B2；G1和G2理解B1及B2，他們也知道在何情況下B1或B2是被依從的，在何情況下它們是被違反的，你可以據此就認為B1和B2是客觀的嗎
*/
我說的「客觀」應該是客觀地可被判定的，並不是客觀地可證立的。以B1及B2的情況，它們可以被理解成是客觀的。當沒有人知道B1/B2在何情下被依從或違反，那麼它就是不客觀。
所以我們可以說客觀的法律規條或不夠客觀的法律規條。例如，「尋釁滋事」就不是客觀的法律規條。
順帶一提，就理解沈的文章，我不用論證多元道德規範是客觀的。我只要論證多元道德規範可以被理解成是客觀的就可。如果我成功論證，那麼，用「客觀的」及「價值上」的去描述多元就沒有不一致。就此，我想我已說得足夠了。
Yan,
回覆刪除//我說的「客觀」應該是客觀地可被判定的，並不是客觀地可證立的。以B1及B2的情況，它們可以被理解成是客觀的。當沒有人知道B1/B2在何情下被依從或違反，那麼它就是不客觀。//
- 你這樣理解「客觀」亦非不通，但在同一脈絡裏用「客觀」和「主觀」，兩詞意義要相對：他說「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」是主觀的，這裏的「主觀」，是相對於你說的「客觀」嗎？
請循其本。唐老原句「這個世界是豐富多元的，我們應該有包容的胸襟，尊重他人的想法和意見，而不是對持相反意見的人動輒口誅筆伐」這個複句可以分做兩個部分：
回覆刪除(a)「這個世界是豐富多元的」
這是描述性的，是對現實的描述。
(b) 「我們應該.........動輒口誅筆伐」
這是規範性的(nominative)，指人應該怎樣做、不應該怎樣做。
沈文說：
『「多元」是客觀、形而上的，泛指不同觀點、生活方式的並存，是恆常的;「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」是主觀、形而下的，每個時代都不同，說句術語，被建構的。』
我們可以把句中的「多元」視作語句(a)的簡稱，而「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」視作語句(b)的簡稱（奇怪的是所引唐老原句中並無「謙恭」一語，這裡視作引用不周或手民之誤吧），則沈文評語為：
語句(a)是客觀、形而上的，泛指不同觀點、生活方式的並存，是恆常的;
語句(b)是主觀、形而下的，每個時代都不同，說句術語，被建構的。
照上文對語句(a)、(b)性質的分類，我們可以作以下詮釋：
形而上＝實然層面 形而下＝應然層面
恆常＝有(客觀)真假值 被建構的＝沒有(客觀)真假值
所謂「單以形而下論證形而上是無意義的」就是「單以應然句論證實然句是無意義的」。哲學家應該同意這個說法，對嗎？
補充一句，沈文提及「支持多元」、「確立多元」可理解為「相信語句(a)為真」，而「反多元」則為「不相信語句(a)為真」。
回覆刪除Hi Wong,
回覆刪除Thanks for your kind reply (though I do wish you could let me know which particular points I made that you agreed with!), I agree that this is an extremely large subject that actually will not likely yield any definitive conclusions, depending on the schools of thought that we subscribe to. Thanks for offering the space here to exchange our views on the subject :)
Hi Meshi:
I approached Shen's passage in a similar way to you as well, except that I think the inconsistencies of Shen precisely lie in the following:
1. If sentence (a) is, as you said (and I agree), meant to be descriptive of the actual world, then he should not be using 形而上 to describe it, surely? At least, we cannot understand 形而上 as "metaphysical" in the context of what Shen was critiquing?
2. I take Shen's phrase "是恆常的" as standing in opposition to "每個時代都不同", rather than as antonymous to "被建構的".
Also, there are several potential applications of the adjective "是恆常的" here -- is Shen talking about:
(i) that sentence (a) is being descriptively perpetual (i.e. we have witnessed that the co-existence of viewpoints *is* indeed enduring in this pluralistic society of ours), or
(ii) that pluralism as a metaphysical concept is perpetual/universal itself (i.e. perpetuality as an attribute of the concept itself, rather than as observed in society), or
(iii) that pluralism *should* be perpetual and enduring?
3. "形而上＝實然層面 形而下＝應然層面"
Now due to my poor Chinese comprehension skills I have difficulty appreciating this proposition: "形而上＝實然層面 形而下＝應然層面", what's 實然 vs 應然? Are we saying something that is ideational/unverifiable (accepted as "true" on first principles) vs something that is empirical/verifiable (not accepted as "true" until evidence can be shown to have proven otherwise)?
If so, I agree that "所謂「單以形而下論證形而上是無意義的」就是「單以應然句論證實然句是無意義的」。" However, the problem of course is that Shen in his own passage was mixing up what is 實然 and 應然 -- is sentence (a) meant to be descriptive or metaphysical; and if sentence (b) is meant to be prescriptive, then surely it cannot then be referred to as something "empirical/verifiable".
p.s. I think "規範性" should be translated as "normative" rather than "nominative", if we take it to refer to "ought" rather than "is" statements.
"補充一句，沈文提及「支持多元」、「確立多元」可理解為「相信語句(a)為真」，而「反多元」則為「不相信語句(a)為真」。"
回覆刪除Personally I wouldn't equate 「支持多元」 with 「確立多元」, the latter could indeed be understood as 「相信語句(a)為真」(i.e. they agree with Tang that HK society is indeed a richly pluralistic one).
But 「支持多元」 should be understood as *pro*-pluralism (i.e., even when they don't agree that HK society is currently pluralistic, they would like to work towards enhancing pluralism in HK society); in which case 反多元」should be understood as *anti*-pluralism (i.e. even when they agree with Tang that HK society is currently richly pluralistic, they hate to see this being the case and would like to work towards diminishing pluralism in HK society).
Oh finally, also meant to say that I've said wayyyyyy too much on this topic and I sincerely apologise for hogging your comments!! Will go away quietly now :) Thanks again Wong for your kind accommodation.
回覆刪除Meshi,
回覆刪除難為你了，沈君如認識你，或可說一句「得失寸心知」了！然而，我還有以下的問題：
//我們可以把句中的「多元」視作語句(a)的簡稱//
- 下文「五四運動口誅筆伐，帶來了形而上的多元」中的「多元」，就不能這麼理解。你或會說這個「多元」沒有用括號，所以不是指(a)，而是指多元這一現象；可是，他在兩句中同用「形而上」作形容詞，那麼，指「多元」這一語句的形而上，與指多元這一現象的形而上，會是同一意思嗎？
//「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」視作語句(b)的簡稱//
- (b)是說我們不應動輒口誅筆伐，用「動輒口誅筆伐」來簡稱(b)，恰當嗎？此外，這個詮釋也不切合他下文那句「像形而下的五四運動口誅筆伐」。
//形而上＝實然層面 形而下＝應然層面//
- 這有些強來了。如果一定要將「應然／實然」和「形而上／形而下」對應，我相信不少哲學家會說應然是形而上的，實然是形而下的。康德不就是大講metaphysics of morals嗎？還有，「形而下的五四運動口誅筆伐」指的當時青年的實際行動，是實然的。
Oh, sorry, just checked out 應然／實然 online (from here: http://phiphicake.blogspot.com/2009/04/blog-post_10.html)(Not sure how good that exposition is from your view, Wong?). Anyway, I think I can now better understand see that the latter 實然 is realist/descriptive (and thus link more to something that is empirical/verifiable).
回覆刪除Oh just that you've written above:
還有，「形而下的五四運動口誅筆伐」指的當時青年的實際行動，是實然的。
Which seems to confirm what I've just been reading, so I think I get what 實然 means now. Thanks :)
Snowdrops,
回覆刪除In philosophy, the 實然／應然 distinction is usually called "the is/ought distinction" or "the fact/value distinction" . The piece you referred to is clear enough.
Wong,
回覆刪除/*
- 你這樣理解「客觀」亦非不通，但在同一脈絡裏用「客觀」和「主觀」，兩詞意義要相對：他說「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」是主觀的，這裏的「主觀」，是相對於你說的「客觀」嗎？
*/
有我想有二種講法，兩者也與客觀相對：
1. 「主觀」意指不客觀，即規條的不客觀。那「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」所指的，是沒有客觀規條而作出的行動。
2. 「主觀」指意志或情感之類的東西，與客觀不相干。「動輒口誅筆伐」、「謙恭」所指的，是由因那東西而作出的行動。
我並不是為沈辯護，我都o係度練劍咋。再者，我就是不信你所說的。
Wong,
回覆刪除沈文多少有點硬傷（這裡指用詞歧義、不一致之處），能夠解得通八九成我已經滿意了。
我也覺得以「形以上／形以下」配「實然／應然」有顛倒之感，但考慮上下文，以及唐老原句，這樣解最通，就當沈先生是抛開傳統，再「建構」這套術語吧。也許他覺得有客觀真假值比較「上」，而沒有客觀真假值、每個時代不同是比較「下」吧。
Snowdrops,
謝謝指出「規範性」不小心錯譯。至於其他仔細的觀察，恕不一一回應了。
Yan 提到...
回覆刪除//我並不是為沈辯護，我都o係度練劍咋。//
- 我都係抱住陪你練劍之心答你。
//再者，我就是不信你所說的。//
- 甚麼意思?
Meshi,
回覆刪除//沈文多少有點硬傷（這裡指用詞歧義、不一致之處），能夠解得通八九成我已經滿意了。//
- 你替沈文這樣補鑊，已很本事了。
我看了看哲學書，裏面有個定義：物質以外的東西，稱為 形而上。任何不可觸碰的實物，有關於思想、或對某事看法......等！
回覆刪除