Zwar redet man seit alters her oft von der „großen Erde‟， aber in Wahrheit ist unsere Erde nur ein der zahllosen Himmelskörper in der Galaxis, die wiederum nur eine der ebenfalls zahllosen, mindestens mehrere Billionen Insel-Universen ist. Diese kleine Erde wird als Folge der Entwicklung der Verkehrs- und Kommunikationsmittel durch die moderne Technik immer kleiner. 　　Der Mensch als das „Auf-der-Welt-Sein‟ ist das Wesen, das in sich sowohl die Größe wie auch die Kleinheit der Erde in sich spiegelt. Es gibt viele literarisch-philosophischen Zeuge dieser Anschauung. Um nur wenige Beispiele dafür anzugeben: „The Good Earth“ von Paul Back, „Die Brüder Karamasow‟ sowie „Schuld und Sühne“ von Dostojewski. 　　Eine phänomenologische Betrachtung der Seinsweise der Erde ist in Husserls „Umsturz der kopernikanischen Lehre‟ zu finden, dessen Untertitel lautet: „Die Ur-Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht. Grundlegende Untersuchungen zum phänomenologischen Ursprung der Körperlichkeit der Räumlichkeit der Natur im ersten naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne‟. Heidegger legt eine andere, bis jetzt noch nicht erschöpfte Einsicht vor, indem er das „Geviert‟ von Himmel und Erde, Göttlichen und Sterblichen, denkt. 　　Die heute dringende philosophische Frage, was die Erde für uns sei, kann mit Daisetsu ein Stück weiter entwickelt und vertieft werden. Daisetsu äußerte gegen Ende und nach dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs einige Gedanke über die Bedeutung der Erde, die er später religionsphilosophisch vertiefte, indem er die genuine große Erde in der Grundgesinnung der „Compassion‟ im buddhistischen Sinne findet.

抄録全体を表示

The author’s main concern in pursuing problems in philosophy has so far been with a possibility of establishment of a Christian theology, uniquely Japanese, with full comprehesion of Japanese spirituality, partially revealed by the logical steps taken by Nishida Kitaro in his philosophical studies. The result has been the author’s conclusion that there exists the royal road from Nishida’s philosophy to the theology of Holy Spirit, and that a passageway to the new philosophy should lie in systematic formation of the topological theology of Holy Trinity. In addition, the Christian faith, logically backed up by this theology of Holy Spirit, should not only bring itself into close contact with the philosophy of Japanese spirituality advanced by Suzuki Daisetsu but help to start a kind of religious revolution: something globally and universally awaited in this new century. Only in this direction is Nishida’s philosophy expected to be genuinely deepened and developed by his disciples. These are some of the conclusions that the author has reached at the end of his nearly livelong inquiry into these important philosophical and religious problems.

抄録全体を表示

We often think of consciousness as if it were a capsule surrounded by a boundary. In this paper, I will show in a phenomenological way that such an image of consciousness does not match the reality given to us. In fact, we cannot find any borderline of our own consciousness. This peculiarity of consciousness makes it difficult to understand how we can experience the otherness of the other. How can there be any otherness if there are no boundaries between consciousnesses? I shall make clear how Husserl and Nishida struggled with this fundamental problem. First, I interpret the “unbounded”character of consciousness as“non-contexutuality”.On the basis of this discussion, I present the basic question concerning the other experienced in consciousness. Second, I examine how Husserl addressed this question. The early Husserl tried to deal with this problem on the basis of his idea of“pure consciousness”which was construed as something “indefinite”.The collapse of this idea motivated Husserl to develop his later concept of“primal I”(Ur-Ich). Third, I discuss how Nishida dealt with the same question. After he tackled this problem in his early theory of“pure experience”，he would overcome this attempt in his later article“I and Thou”，which seems to stress the non-contextual encounter with otherness.

抄録全体を表示

Provided that philosophy is fundamental knowledge of the relation between world and spirit, it must be a radical reflection that includes not only the object of inquiry, but also the knowledge itself and its origin, which is transcendental thinking. Both Heidegger and Nishida, facing critical change in the traditional European sciences in general, were engaged in the rethinking and revival of the possibilities for the philosophical foundation of knowledge, the former based on the existential activities of life, and the latter on the ‘pure experience’ as base of all realities. In contemporary philosophy, these two insights are realized to have affinity with each other in the aspect of phenomenology. Hence, for the purpose of comparing the two creative philosophers, it is indispensable to take the problem of phenomenology into consideration, especially its thier deep investigation of the ‘medium’, through which phenomena show themselves. What is called ‘Dasein’ by Heidegger, ‘pure experience’ by Nishida, is nothing but the central sphere that conceives the whole reality and pure knowledge about it. The proximity of their modes of thinking, furthermore, extends to the dimension of fundamental and transcendental reflection on the occurrence of the unity of reality and spirit. Indicating such a thinking process, which would finally lead to the formation of transcendental speculation as ‘image’, is the aim of this article.

抄録全体を表示

La philosophie de Nishida Kitarô et la phénoménologie, malgré leur discordance qui s’impose à première vue, partagent en réalité d’importants points communs dans leur problématique fondamentale. Leur point de contact pourrait se trouver dans “le maintenant éternel”, qui est la notion ultime de la philosophie de Nishida, et dans “le présent vivant”, qui est la notion la plus fondamentale pour la philosophie transcendantale de Husserl. Le concept de “continuité du discontinu” chez Nishida nous permet de comprendre des termes contradictoires, par exemple, l’individu et l’universel, l’un et le multiple, à la faveur de leur coexistence dans l’identité en contradiction absolue ou dans la simultanéité des instants discontinus. Il nous permet de trouver le schéma de la dialectique absolue de Nishida, distinguée de celle de Hegel qui fait disparaître la contradiction de départ en synthèse finale comme négation de la négation. On peut trouver aussi une “dialectique” virtuelle, qui réconcilie la contradiction entre la présentation originelle et la dé-présentation, la présence originelle et l’absence, dans “le présent vivant” chez Husserl. Alors que Husserl n’a jamais utilisé le terme “dialectique”, Fink et Merleau-Ponty, ses successeurs, ayant développé la phénoménologie transcendantale husserlienne jusqu’au point où elle se transforme en ontologie du monde, font se détacher et se réactiver la dialectique virtuelle de leur ancêtre. L’ontologie de l’Être sauvage de Merleau-Ponty, qui rejette le négativisme aussi que le positivisme, s’en prend à la pensée dialectique de Hegel et de Sartre — laquelle définit l’être et le néant comme une contradiction absolue —, et exige de saisir l’être, plus primordial que cette contradiction, dans le mouvement infinie de “l’hyperdialectique”. Dans ses cours sur la dialectique, Merleau-Ponty évoque ainsi la thèse de la dialectique chez Platon :“L’identité est différence de différence.” La dialectique que Merleau-Ponty a trouvée consiste en une relation où l’identité et la différence, ou bien l’immanence et la transcendance, s’enveloppent l’une l’autre. Cette relation réciproque, il la trouve dans des expressions de Valéry telles que “chiasme” et “réversibilité”. Valéry a défini le chiasme comme l’échange des regards entre deux individus, entre moi et toi, comme l’état où l’on ne peut pas être ni un ni deux. C’est ici que nous pourrons comparer la philosophie de Nishida et celle de Merleau-Ponty, dans leur effort commun pour dépasser la pensée dialectique de Hegel, laquelle circonscrit la limite et la fin de la métaphysique occidentale, et où nous pourrons chercher leur point commun de départ pour la nouvelle métaphysique que l’on attend aujourd’hui.

抄録全体を表示

Both Nishida and Hegel see the occurrence of something from the viewpoint of‘energeia and dynamis’.In this paper, we try to clarify their theory and consider their relation and difference. Hegel generally sees the occurrence of something as change from energeia to dynamis. He thinks our activity derives something which exists in itself from condition. In A Study of Good, Nishida sees product of act as actualization of potential inspiration and formulates form of activity of consciousness as differentiation and development of potential totality. We can see Hegel’s influence on Nishida’s thought above. However, after the book, we can see change in Nishida’s thought. That is to say, in the later Nishida, he negates either actualization of potentiality or creation from nothing and consists paradox that something comes from the former world spontaneously while activity of finding it out changes it. Hegel’s theory has tendency of a kind of determinism. On the other hand, Nishida’s theory permits various possibilities of new occurrence and allows creativity and individuality of our activity which takes part in determination of new occurrence. As for our action, Hegel sees it as actualization of our potential talent and character and as change of form from dynamis to energeia whereas Nishida thinks that product of act cultivates our talent and character.

抄録全体を表示

Nishitani Keiji understood Nishida Philosophy’s core project to be the establishment of new metaphysics. This new metaphysics is characterized by an attempt to lead to transcendental absoluteness without departing from this actual world of ours. This project stems from the modern philosophical circumstances: we are no longer able to find a way to solve the problems of our inner human life by following a path to an other world or, in Buddhist language, the“other side”or“far side”，because, in our modern life, we accept only this world, that is to say,“this side”or“the near side”as the actual and true world and we do not permit any kind of departure from this world. According to Nishitani, Nishida philosophy attempted to solve this problem by breaking through the framework of empiricism to“experience itself”.By means of this breakthrough, we can realize“experience”as the one, whole, and absolute activity. Nishitani understands Nishida’s breakthrough to experience itself as a transcendence to“this side”or“the near side”.By means of this breakthrough, our personal subjectivity will also come to be recognized as a part of the one, whole and absolute activity; and hence a path to absoluteness will be found that differs from the path that leads to a transcendence to an “other side”or“far side”.In this manner, Nishida Philosophy establishes a new metaphysics, which connects us with transcendental absoluteness without departing from our actual and daily world.

抄録全体を表示