Imanishi Kinji, the founder of Japanese primatology, anthropologist, ecologist, alpinist, and explorer, devoted his life to quest for the structure and function of this world, including human beings. The influence of Nishida Kitarō’s thought can be clearly read in his work. Imanishi wrote “The World of Living Things” in 1941, during the Second World War, and stated that since all organisms were originally differentiated from one another, they must have the ability to recognize each other, and that is why they can recognize each other and coexist even after differentiation into many species. However, there must be a “place where mutual recognition occurs.” This idea was derived from the phenomenon of “segregation,” which Imanishi discovered through his observation of mayflies. These ideas of “acceptance,” “segregation,” and “coexistence” are in tension to Darwin’s evolutionary theory of “competition,” “adaptation,” and “selection.” Darwin believed that the environment is a one-way influence on organisms, and that selection functions by allowing individuals of each species to adapt to the environment in which they live. Imanishi, however, saw organisms and the environment as one and the same, each affecting the other. In fact, the influence of Nishida can be seen in this idea. In “Logic and Life,” published in 1937, Nishida stated, “Life changes the environment, and the environment changes life.” This is also a concept that is shared by von Uexküll’s “Umwelt” and Watsuji Tetsurō’s “Fūdō (Milieu)” of the same period. Both Nishida and Imanishi regarded “the structure as function, and the function as structure” as the fundamental principle of life, and Imanishi called the state in which individuals of the same species recognize each other and coexist spatially and temporally a “society.” This was Imanishi’s practice of trying to prove Nishida’s idea through nature observation, and through the results of primatology, it is now common knowledge around the world that animals have societies. Augustin Berque refers to the ideas of Nishida, Watsuji, and Imanishi as predicative, not as a logic of substance and sees them as a necessary alternative to Western excluded middle and dualism for the present era, in the vein of the Oriental biassertion. The objective remaking of the environment by modern science and technology to suit human convenience, we are now plagued by rapid climate and environmental changes that exceed the limits of the earth. The “natural study (not science)” that Imanishi conceived in his later years is a way of thinking that does not divide nature into elements but considers the whole as a flow, as a principle rather than as a phenomenon. Imanishi spent his entire life exploring the issues of “proto-identity” as a human organism. This problem originated in the philosophy of Nishida Kitarō and has emerged as a problem of the Anthropocene through Imanishi’s vast explorations of nature in his academic expeditions.

抄録全体を表示

Im Folgenden möchten wir klarstellen, dass Nishidas “Die Logik des Ortes” und Eckharts “Die Lehre vom Principium essentiale” den Charakter des Panentheismus haben. 　　Der von Karl C. F. Krause im 18. Jahrhundert benannte Panentheismus, ist eine Theorie, die als Kritik am Pantheismus entstanden ist. Zunächst wird der von John Toland vorgeschlagene Pantheismus untersucht, gefolgt vom Panentheismusbegriff als eine Kritik an ihm. 　　Wie Nishida verwendet auch Eckhart die traditionelle Metapher der unendlichen Sphäre, um seine Theorie zu entwickeln. Die Metapher lautet, dass Gott die unendliche Sphäre ist, deren Mittelpunkt überall und deren Umfang nirgends ist. Nishida lernte diese Metapher von Nikolaus von Kues kennen, der sie wiederum durch Meister Eckhart erfuhr. Die Quelle dieser Metapher der unendlichen Sphäre ist ein kurzes Manuskript mit dem Titel “Das Buch der 24 Philosophen”, das aus dem 13. Jahrhundert stammen soll. Es enthält die vierundzwanzig Definitionen Gottes und den Kommentar. Das Buch ist eines der schönsten und folgenreichsten Dokumente der europäischen Theosophie, sagt Kurt Flasch, und es hat Meister Eckhart, Nikolaus von Kues, Giordano Bruno und Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz beeinflusst.

抄録全体を表示

　　This study examined the influence of Nishida Kitarōʼs An Inquiry into the Good on the development of philosophical study in Japan, focusing on the bookʼs first chapter devoted to epistemology. Modern Japanese philosophy began as a science of the sciences, exploring the governing principle that characterizes various phenomena examined in other sciences. This idea was embodied by Inoue Tetsujirō, a leader of Japanese philosophical studies during the Meiji era, in his metaphysics to place “reality” as the basis for the emergence of phenomena. 　　Nishidaʼs An Inquiry into the Good took over the concept of philosophy, depicting epistemology as another central philosophical issue, as well as metaphysics. By regarding “reality” as “direct experience” from which all cognition emerges, Nishida redefined the function of human cognition as an aspect of “reality.” From this viewpoint, it is impossible for metaphysics to complete its task without epistemology. 　　Simultaneously, the work implies that “reality” is understood as the form of “intellectual intuition” as the most fundamental form of cognition preceding ordinary cognition. Namely, “reality,” which is the object of metaphysics, is approachable only through “intellectual intuition” elucidated by epistemology. Thus, epistemology and metaphysics are viewed as two branches of philosophy complementing one another.

抄録全体を表示

　　In 1911, the same year as the publication of An Inquiry into the Good, Nishida published “On the Arguments of the Pure Logic School in Epistemology,” in which he introduced the criticism of psychologism by Windelband, Rickert, and others, and defended the position of An Inquiry into the Good. However, a change in Nishidaʼs thought from An Inquiry into the Good to Intuition and Ref lection in Self-Consciousness can berecognized. 　　In An Inquiry into the Good, the basis of all truth is found in pure experience. On the other hand, in “Response to the Criticism of Satomi Takahashiʼs An Inquiry into the Good,” the foundation of truth is sought in an a priori or in a position that unifies experience. “Contemporary Philosophy” claims that the foundation of truth lies in self-consciousness. In Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness, Nishida insists that the self-consciousness he refers to is not psychological, but transcendental. It can be said that Nishida realizes that An Inquiry into the Good is psychologistic and adopts a transcendentalist position to break away from psychologism. This approach to transcendentalism can be understood as a characteristic of the position of self-consciousness in Intuition and Reflection in Self-Consciousness in contrast to the psychologistic position of pure experience in An Inquiry into the Good.

抄録全体を表示

The idea of body should be included in the set of concepts that the early Nishida developed through the notion of “one field of experience.” His later philosophy also sees the self as “one field” of mutual interactions, which signifies collaborations of free individuals that constitute the real world. What Nishida lays out as his philosophical standpoint in The Study of the Good, which regards the unique, original, and creative activity of the “one field/place of experience” as the true reality, fundamentally remains the same throughout his oeuvre. His mature works, however, emphasizes that this creative activity is that which denies and remakes existing reality. Nishida calls this “historical production,” in relation to which he further developed his insight into the notion of the “body.” He argues that the body is the center of gravity in the productive process, where various moments express themselves through their mutual collaborations. This communal “form” of embodied self or the “historical body” is also understood in terms of “society.” A collaboration between self and other is realized through the negation of their mutual desire to control others. Only then, the self can truly be what it is (in relation with the other). Nishidaʼs philosophy of body, thus, shows that our own body expresses, both by itself and beyond, the impossibility of autonomously controlling oneself and others.

抄録全体を表示

　In this paper, I aim at interpreting the mind-body-land connection as a three-stage extension process of the field of experience, which proceeds accordingly as the three-step movement of our experience develops. 　　My paper consists of three sections. Drawing on Nishida Kitarōʼs early texts such as An Inquiry into the Good and Fragments Concerning Pure Experience, I first show why mind or oneʼs subjective consciousness deserves to be regarded as the field of experience corresponding to the first phase of the movement of experience even though this beginning of experience is a state where subject and object have not yet separated. I then explore how the second phase of the movement of experience requires body as its corresponding field, which also serves as a seat of supra-individual unity provided by the unifying power of nature. On this basis, I finally argue that this transpersonal power of nature is combined with that of society. Inspired by Tetsurō Watsuji and Keiji Nishitani, I thus seek to clarify that these both powers are merged into land as the ultimate field of our entire life experience.

抄録全体を表示

「純粋経験」について述べる際、西田は身体技術について言及することが多い。本論はこのことに着目し、『善の研究』における「純粋経験」を身体技術との関係において考察することを目的とする。具体的には、素人の純粋経験と達人のそれはどう異なるのかという問いを立てる。考察の結果、『善の研究』の段階では、西田はその違いを記述するための概念を明示していないこと、そのためには後期の習慣についての考察を俟たなければならないことが明らかになる。

抄録全体を表示

本稿の目的は、〈感覚的（aesthetic）主体性〉という観点から西谷啓治の立 場を解釈することである。そのために、本稿では、後期西谷における「純粋 経験」という考えの受容を検討する。本稿の解釈に則れば、〈感覚的主体性〉 は、主体が「理に即して働く」知覚者として、知性から区別されながら同時 に知性から切り離され得ない「感覚の領域」という〈規範的な必然性の領域〉 に参与することを含むのである。

抄録全体を表示