Journal of Nishida Philosophy Association
Online ISSN : 2434-2270
Print ISSN : 2188-1995
Volume 5
Showing 1-10 articles out of 10 articles from the selected issue
  • An attempt at analyzing Nishida’s logic of field through the structure of sentence and the movement of consciousness
    [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 1-20
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the logic of field advocated by Kitaro Nishida as fundamental way of thinking about the contradictive self-identical self, is the creative expressive logic of being and nothing, through the analysis of the correlation between the inner cross-structure of sentence and the dynamic movement of consciousness. In the first part, “the structure of sentence and the movement of consciousness”, referring to the structural linguistics of Roman Jakobson, I argue that the inner cross-structure of the composition(formation)of sentences through the selection(resemblance)and the combination(contiguity)of words, in other words the crossing of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes of language, and the moving state of poetic language (metaphor, metonymy)characterized by the supremacy of the equivalence of speech sound and meaning, are sustained by the dynamic relation and reverse movement of consciousness, which corresponds to the coexistence (synchronicity)and succession(diachronicity)of objects. In the second part, “the logic of subjectivity and the relation of subject and object”, I introduce some typical logic in Western philosophy, first Aristotle’s logic of the substance as substratum(subject), secondly, after the establishment of the thinking ego through René Descartes’‘cogito’and Immanuel Kant’s ‘apperception’, Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s logic of the interaction between self(subject)and not-self(object), and thirdly Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s dialectic logic of the absolute through self-negativity. In some views, Hegel’s dialectic logic could be regarded as a kind of logic of field, but Nishida criticizes that Hegel’s logic remains objective and is not the absolute dialectics. And in the third part, “the logic of field and the reverse of subject and predicate”,I examine Nishida’s logic of field, which emphasizes the subsuming function of the predicate as field more than that of the subject as substance in a proposition. This logic of field characterized as predicate logic has a similar structure to the following phenomenological and psychological concepts concerning the actual and potential: Edmund Husserl’s ‘horizon’, Edgar John Rubin ’s ‘figure and ground ’ an d Karl Buhler ’s ‘field’. Further, the logic of field contains and surpasses the one-dimensional structure of the sentence dependent on the subsuming relationship of subject-predicate, and of the judgment dependent on the formative relationship. Therefore I conclude that Nishida's logic of field is the creative expressive logic of being and nothing, according to which the potential is actualized through the reversing appearance of the subject as object (formed thing)and the predicate as horizon(unformed possibility).
    Download PDF (887K)
  • Zur Frage nach der “Geschichte”
    [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 21-43
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    Goichi Miyake(1895‐1982)war zweifellos einer der bedeutendsten Schüler, die sich Kitaro Nishid(a 1870‐1945) durch seine Lehrtätigkeit in Kyoto erworben hat. Nachdem Miyake an der kaiserlichen Universität Kyoto sein Studium(1916‐19)abgeschlossen hatte, war er über zwanzig Jahre Assistenzprofessor für Wissenschaftslehre an der Kaiserlichen Universität Tohoku(Sendai). Nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg lehrte er in Sendai, Kyoto und Gakushuin(Tokyo)jeweils als Ordinarius für Philosophie. Im Vergleich zu anderen Philosophen, die zur “Kyoto Schule”gehörten, wie etwa Iwao Kouyama, Keiji Nishitani, ist Miyake nicht ganz so bekannt. Denn er schrieb fast keine Essais und er nahm nicht am Motiv des “absoluten Nichts”teil. Zudem lag sein Arbeitsplatz Sendai ungefähr 700 Kilometer von Kyoto, dem damaligen Philosophenzentrum entfernt. Aber Miyakes Hochachtung für Nishida hat sich durch sein Leben hindurch nie verändert. Auch Nishida fragte Miyake oft nach seiner Meinung oder seinem Urteil. Beide diskutierten über die philosophischen Kernfragen, die im Mittelpunkt von Nishidas System stehen. Vor allem sprachen sie über die “Geschichte”. Hier entwickelte sich ein ernsthafter und kritischer Dialog. Was ist die Geschichte? Nishida und Miyake stimmen zwar darin überein, dass die Geschichte nicht als eine bloss metaphysische Konstruktion zu behandeln ist, vielmehr soll sie im Selbstbewusstsein des Einzelnen aufgewiesen werden. Aber Nishida geht weiter als Miyake, so dass alles Wirkliche in “absolut widersprüchlicher Selbstidentität”zu finden ist, d.h. idealistisch in der “Geschichte”im Nishidaschen Sinne enthalten ist. Dagegen definiert Miyake die Geschichte als einen “kontextlosen Zusammnehang der sozial funktionierenden Wirkungen”, d.h. nach Miyake soll die Identifizierung der ganzen Wirklichkeit mit der Geschichte, als eine“unrichtige Verganzheitlichung der Geschichte”, wie dies bei Nishida, Hegel, Marx u.a.der Fall ist, kritisiert werden, An diesem Dialog ist für uns heute sehr lehrreich, ja sogar überaus beeindrückend zu sehen, wie und aus welchem Grund Miyake Nishidas “Geschichts”begriff als “absolute widersprechende Selbstidentität”zu kritisieren versucht, ohne dass Miyake seinen tiefen Respekt sowohl vor der Person wie auch vor der Philosophie seines Lehrers verliert.
    Download PDF (888K)
  • In Dialogue with Hartshorne, Takizawa, and Thomas
    [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 45-62
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    In discussing our theme “Philosophy and Religion in Nishida”my responsibility is to clarify it from the Christian perspective. To tackle the issue properly, let me take up as my critical-comparative means of analysis the thoughts of three unique Christian thinkers : famous American process philosopher Charles Hartshorne who represents Whitehead’s thought as his first disciple, my teacher Katsumi Takizawa, and Thomas Aquinas whose analogical scheme of thought I studied as a viable framework of comparative philosophy of religion in my Ph. D. dissertation entitled “God and Analogy : In Search of a New Possibility of Natural Theology”(Claremont Graduate School, 1981). Appearing to be of crucial importance in this regard are Hartshorne’s neo-classical theism and panentheism, Takizawa’s concern with what he calls “the Proto-factum Immanuel,”and Aquinas’s scheme of theological analogy including four modes of analogy with the famous idea of Analogia Entis at its core. I will approach Nishida’s philosophy appearing in An Inquiry into the Good, Intuition and Reflection in Self-Awareness, and The Logic of Place and the Religious Worldview in line with Shizuteru Ueda’s famous elucidation of the dictum “I want to explain all things on the basis of pure experience as the sole reality.” I will end up with the discovery of a triadic thinking throughout his philosophical career involving these volumes.
    Download PDF (877K)
  • Von Standpunkt des Zen-Buddhismus
    [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 63-80
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    Ueber die mir gegebene Aufgabe denke ich hauptsaechlich von Standpunkt der Beziehung zwischen “Byojotei”(平常底) und “Gyakutaiou”(逆対応). Dadurch moechte ich erklaeren, was das von Nishida gesagte “Zen- Buddhische”bedeutet. “Byojotei”ist Zen-Buddhischer Begriff und “Gyakutaiou”ist hauptsaechlich der des Jodoshinsyu. In Nishidas Religion(und Philosophie)sind die zwei Begriffe(und Sekten)einander widersprechend und zugleich identisch. Darin sieht Nishida das eigentliche Buddhische und “Zen-Buddhische”. Und nach seiner philosophischen Weltanschauungist diese religioese “widersprechende-selbstidentische”Struktur nicht anders als dem Ausdruck der Welt selbst.
    Download PDF (851K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 81-96
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    The whole subject of the symposium is “Philosophy and Religion in Nishida,”and it is the task imposed on me to approach the subject and bring up what problems there are about it in terms of Shin Buddhism. For that purpose, I tried to think about the theme from three following points : (1) The Fundamental Understanding of Philosophy and Religion in Nishida, (2) The Definition of Religion, Religious Awareness and the Whereabouts of Religious Problems in Nishida, and (3) The Characteristic of Nishida’s View of Shinran or Shin Buddhism and its Meaning. The points of(1) and (2) are what we should know by all means in order to discuss the problem of philosophy and religion in Nishida, therefore I dealt with them to confirm that. As for the point (3), I examined how Nishida grasped the religious essence of Shinran or Shin Buddhism, focusing on Shinran’s words of “Ōchō”, “Jinenhōni”, “Ginaki-o-gitosu”and “Myōgō”which express the core of Shin Buddhism, and are the fundamental words. As a result, it turned out that Nishida considered the essence of Shin Buddhism as teachings of salvation by faith in Amidabha’s absolute power (Other Power) with great compassion, (Zettai-higan-no-tariki-shu). Through the examination, we could simultaneously not only explicate the characteristic and significance of Nishida’s view of Shinran or Shin Buddhism but also present some meaningful matters on philosophy and religion in Nishida. Going right to the point, real teachings of absolute Other Power can be grasped and explained only by “fact of spiritual self-awareness”and “place-logic”, and never by abstract subject and objective logic. In such a way, therefore, philosophy and religion can deepen and develop themselves more through the mediacy of the other, and in this sense both would be able to be complementary to each other. We here find a great possibility and meaning of Nishida Philosophy as philosophy of religion.
    Download PDF (841K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 97-111
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    La structure hiérarchique de la philosophie de Plotin est bien connue comme l’émanation de la lumière de l’Un qui finit à l’obscurité de la matière sensible. Vers le milieu du vingtième siècle, les chercheurs de Plotin ont commencé à remarquer les deux étapes dans la procession de l’Intellect à partir de l’Un, à savoir, la génération de la vision indéfinie de l’Intellect(la matière intelligible)et la conversion de cette vision vers l’Un(la définition de l’Intellect). À ce point de vue, on peut considérer l’Un chez Plotin comme ce qui est au delà de la matière, à la direction de la matière. Autrement dit, l’Un est transcendant ploutôt à la direction de l’activité qu’à la direction de l’être. On peut dire que l’activité qui procède de l’Un et qui retourne à Lui est réflexive et l’intellection de soi au niveau de l’Intellect est, pour ainsi dire, la vision réflexive de l’Un qui est lui-même non-réflexif. Quand on remarque cet aspect de l’émanation chez Plotin, on peut reconnaître les resemblances avec la philosophie de Nishida.
    Download PDF (882K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 113-128
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    In this paper, we examine the problem of nihilism, conferring Nishida’s theory Basho. The negativity of nihilism appears to be infinite and can never be logically upset. This negativity makes our being complete nonsense. But we can find some cases of experience in which even such nihilism vanishes. These cases indicate that even cruel nihilism has a hidden condition, and that upsetting this condition leads us to make nihilism vanish. Whatever we may think, our thought, in general, must be based on a certain frame which remains not thematic. And Basho corresponds to this frame in the first place. Next, the infinite negativity of nihilism is based on a peculiar frame, and such frame is nothing other than “Basho of genuine nothingness”. Such Basho must include even the quantitative infinite negative nothingness, so this Basho must be qualitatively infinite. And this qualitative infinity conditions any of our thinking and therefore it is situated before the distinction of being and nothing. So it is absolutely unthinkable. Thus the paradoxical character of “Basho of genuine nothingness”is that we are driven to regard it as a certain reality in spite of its incomprehensibility. And such Basho’s transcendence from the quantitative infinity is also incomprehensible for us. As far as we accept such character of Basho, we cannot help us to suppose that reality is not restricted to rational reality.
    Download PDF (840K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 129-145
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    Though Nishida’s speculation always seeks illumination from “the most direct and concrete reality”, it is in “Self- conscious Determination of Nothingness”(1932)that he began to discuss the historical world of Reality as his proper theme. This article is important, because the late Nishida’s philosophy started from here. In this paper, I attempt to explore the historical world of Reality in “Self-conscious determination of Nothingness”. I notice Nishida’s statement that Reality must be considered from “time”, and that the fact itself must be temporal and personal(6-270). Nishida explored “the world of reality”from his theory of personality and time. At first, I notice Nishida’s theory of time as “self-determination of the eternal present”. It is the present that determines the present itself. This way of self- determination explains the constitution of a personal self which realizes itself by self-negation in temporality. Then, I want to see the “continuity”and “discontinuity” of determination in the relationship between “desire”and “self-denying love”. Desire pretends to keep continuity of itself, while self-denying love denies this continuity of self absolutely. But self-denying love unites the separated selves. Nishida says that this love is “absolute love” working through the self-determination of the eternal present. The eternal present realized itself by self- denying. This negativity is “absolute love”, i.e. agape as God’s love. Agape is self-emptying love, as it is called “kenosis”, that Jesus made himself nothing(Philippians 2 : 7). Following a personal God of “kenosis”, the world of Reality denies itself and affirms itself. The personal self is, for Nishida, reality based on absolute love that surpasses the desiring self. It denies itself, and meets another personal self. This self-determination of person is made possible by “absolute love”. I and Thou meet each other in such an absolute love and create the historical world.
    Download PDF (848K)
  • Comparison with C. S. Peirce
    [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 147-159
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    It is widely known that Kitaro Nishida consistently criticized and opposed the dualism of the European philosophy. This study reveals that Nishida was inspired toward this opposition by his unique intuition of totality and the continuity of the world. This study also analyzes this issue of “continuity” through a dialogue with the pragmatic perspective of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), and particularly, with his viewpoint on the abduction theory. It also considers his thesis “Self-Identity and Continuity of the World Sekai no Jiko-Douitsu to Renzoku, “Introduction to Metaphysics( Keijijo-gaku Joron),” and “A Study of Good( Zen no Kenkyu),” and argues, from a multilateral perspective, that Nishida’s philosophical notions on “inclusion” and “continuity” were confirmed by empirical as well as scientific thought.
    Download PDF (836K)
  • [in Japanese]
    2008 Volume 5 Pages 161-167
    Published: 2008
    Released: March 24, 2020
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    Download PDF (744K)
feedback
Top